Historical locking is used on main sites to indicate old questions that are off topic due to new rules. These posts have collected a lot of votes and are referenced much. Historical locking is used to prevent these posts from being deleted.

locked by Moderator ♦ Mar 16 at 20:01

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: help center.

On Meta sites, historical locks are used to mark posts where voting should be frozen for all answers. Examples are contests that have been completed, closed pro-tem moderator nomination threads or long-completed (or abandoned) feature announcements.

I think the standard lock reason is not applicable for all these cases. As these cases make out the overwhelming majority of meta posts that are historically locked, I propose to change the reason on MSE and on all per-site metas to something more appropriate, for example:

locked by Moderator ♦ in 4 hours

Voting on this question and answers was only appropriate in the past. To preserve the original state and voting results, this post and its answers are frozen in time and cannot be changed or voted on.

Similiar feature requests:

marked as duplicate by MEE - Reinstate Monica, Community Nov 22 '18 at 19:01

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Considering Shog's answer on my question (the second one you linked), this might be better as an answer to it, suggesting the wording for Meta sites. Be certain that take his notes into account, though. :) Otherwise, could you explain how this is different? It seems like it's trying to achieve the same goals. :) – Catija Nov 22 '18 at 17:48
  • @Catija well I stated in my post that it is for these rare occurances where voting actually needs to be locked. And I understand your question so that you would like to introduce a totally new lock and not just rename it. But yes, otherwise it is certainly the same goal. Also I don't want to fix this proposal on my wording suggestion. I know it is utterly imperfect. – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 17:53
  • But I don't think simply removing the off-topic part (Shog wrote that happened in the beginning) would be enough. Also the part with "no evidence" would need to be removed but then I think that the description would not be descriptive enough why locking needs to be removed. – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 17:55
  • @Catija if you think I should rather write an answer to an over 2 years old post, ok I will and I will dupe-close and delete my proposal. But I think this proposal has more visibility as a new question than as an answer. – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 17:56
  • 1
    laugh -- I went to the other question to write an answer as @Catija suggested, only to find that I already had. Is there anything not covered in my proposal that you're looking for? Do we just need a way to poke the older question again? – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 18:21
  • @MonicaCellio funny -- I like the last sentence from you (followup discussions) but I think your wording is more critical regarding to Shog's counter-arguments ("close the discussion"). I tried to make my proposal more focussed on "preservation of state" (as in the original historical lock message) but of course my proposal is probably very badly worded, as I am not a native English speaker. – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 18:33
  • Your English is fine. I see the point you're making now; mine doesn't explicitly say it's to preserve state (though it seems implicit in it being a lock), and yours mentions voting explicitly. Locking locks both content and voting, and it's not always just about the votes. For example, pro-tem-mod nominations should probably not be editable years later. – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 18:36
  • @MonicaCellio yeah my first sentence is not optimal as it implies that this lock is merely about voting. Maybe merging yours, Catijas and mine proposal to the ultimate meta-lock-wording (tm): This post is about an prior event that can no longer be participiated in. To preserve the original state and voting results, this post and its answers are frozen in time and cannot be changed or voted on. Take followup discussions to new meta questions. or so... – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 18:39
  • @MEE I've made an edit based on your suggestion, thanks. (And that edit bumps that question, so it's visible again.) – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 18:53
  • @MonicaCellio ah ... to the other question... Should I close mine as a dupe now? – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 18:54
  • If you think the other question now covers what you're asking about, sure. (I assume you can do that yourself; if not, let me know and I'll do it with my dupehammer.) – Monica Cellio Nov 22 '18 at 18:58
  • @MonicaCellio yeah, I think with the (imho improved) new wording it covers exactly what I wanted to say. (And yes I can singlehandedly close my own posts as dupe. [Done!]) – MEE - Reinstate Monica Nov 22 '18 at 19:00