Look at this question. It is closed as a duplicate. Editing the question body, one sees this markdown code at the top, added in 2012 by Community:

> **Possible Duplicate:**  
> [Per-site meta notifications don't ask you to see your profile](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/136365/per-site-meta-notifications-dont-ask-you-to-see-your-profile)  

<!-- End of automatically inserted text -->

This seems to be something that used to happen on duplicate-closed questions. However, now this doesn't happen. What causes some to stay like this? Is there something that users should do to fix questions like these, or should they just leave them as-is?


This is the old way of indicating duplicates. It was changed in 2013; since then the duplicate banner is automatically generated, which has some advantages as outlined in this answer:

Instead of being edited into the question body, the banner is now generated as-needed and displayed separately above the question (in a fashion that appears more or less the same as the edit would've). If the question is reopened, it's removed. As a bonus, this displays the target's answer count, and is automatically updated if the linked target's title is edited. This is also generated for the author as soon as someone votes or flags to close, along with a button to immediately close the question, so the author can know right away that there's an existing solution to be found and close it themselves.

If you look at the timeline of the question, you'll see that it has been closed as an 'exact duplicate' while newer closures have just 'duplicate' instead.

Is there something that users should do to fix questions like these, or should they just leave them as-is?

Users with a dupehammer can reopen the question, remove the banner, and close the question again. This will bump the question, so it should only be done if there's something else that bumped the question already. The old style banner is not optimal but still works, and as the saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

| improve this answer | |
  • Grammar note: it’d be “it was changed” in 2013, not “it has been”, because there’s a specific time stated in the preposition after it. – Stormblessed Oct 20 '19 at 18:29
  • You have edit privileges, I'd be delighted if you use them - this is a rather common mistake among Dutch native speakers. For us, there's basically no difference between present perfect and simple past. – Glorfindel Oct 20 '19 at 18:32
  • oh interesting! I just felt like pointing it out in a comment that you’d be more likely to see, knowing that your native language isn’t English. – Stormblessed Oct 20 '19 at 18:33
  • I appreciated this comment (the edit is not substantive enough to generate an inbox notification), but there might be other users who'd respond along the lines of "why are you bothering me with a minor grammar issue". – Glorfindel Oct 20 '19 at 18:37
  • Yup, it’s only because I knew you’re Dutch. – Stormblessed Oct 20 '19 at 18:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .