Came to mind when reading this question, but would be useful for more than just moved, off-topic questions (I'd especially like to see duplicate questions flagged as such in the title).


  • 4
    I thought for a second this post was also closed. – akarnokd Jul 18 '09 at 22:23
  • 2
    Good idea! I should know, it's mine... ;-) – Kyle Cronin Jul 18 '09 at 22:40
  • Steal from the best, i say... – Shog9 Jul 19 '09 at 0:07
  • 2
    i put [closed] in quotes for you so it won't look like this question is actually closed... – Kip Jul 19 '09 at 2:34
  • @RobertHarvey Is your edit what resolved the problem discussed here? – Bart Feb 4 '12 at 20:48
  • 1
    @Bart: Yes, it is. I had to use a direct link to get an edit window so I could remove the quotation marks. – user102937 Feb 4 '12 at 21:23

edit: my reason for declining this was bunk, however we did implement a different way:

Migrated questions will say [migrated] instead of [closed] now.

  • Agreed; if it is closed, it is largely a dead duck; let it alone. People can always go into the question for details. – Marc Gravell Jul 19 '09 at 10:09
  • The basic issue behind this, and several other question is that the current site visualization in not enough for many workflow patterns applied by the users. You might remember seeing a picture like this: twittch.com/26 ? – akarnokd Jul 19 '09 at 11:04
  • 17
    The suggestion I made that prompted this was to change [closed] to [moved] or [migrated] for migrated questions. Since a closed question and a migrated question are two very different things, I still think it might be a good idea to differentiate them. Plus, it doesn't make the titles any longer. – Kyle Cronin Jul 19 '09 at 14:45
  • 1
    And [duplicate] could similarly be useful without hurting readability. (Many closed questions already don't have readable and useful titles anyway, so I'm not sure much is lost even with the verbose form of the feature request.) – Gnome Feb 8 '10 at 10:45
  • 1
    If we use [moved] and other shorter titles, then it won't make the length much worse. take the question "will server-side programming be an taught differently in the future? [closed]" Now tell me what you will find when you look at the question. A link to a dupe? moved to SF? closed as subjective? There's no way to tell. The whole point of a title is to summarize a question, and just [closed] dismally fails at this.... – Gordon Gustafson Mar 21 '10 at 1:26
  • I like @Kyle's suggestion and concur with @Crazy, when reading only question titles knowing whether a questions was closed as a dupe or may simply need to be improved and deserves a reopen vote then would spare the time of opening some closed questions... – Tobias Kienzler Feb 18 '11 at 11:10

I think that this is a good idea.

I actually thought that this question was closed when I first saw it in the list though!


Good concept, but It would make the title too long in some cases, perhaps an abbreviation would make things sorter. It is also possible, that the [closed] change is automated and not parameterable:

[closed - not programming related]   [XNP]
[closed - belongs on Serverfault]    [XSF]
[closed - belongs on Meta]           [XMT]
[closed - duplicate]                 [XD]
  • 5
    I would certainly hope the [closed] change is automated! If poor Geoff is sitting there manually editing each question... – Shog9 Jul 18 '09 at 22:25
  • I think that behind-the-scenes, it adds that during formatting of the output, and the actual title doesn't change. – Lucas Jones Jul 18 '09 at 22:31
  • 7
    -1 for cryptic abbreviations. The point of the suggestion is to make titles more clear, not less! – RichieHindle Jul 18 '09 at 22:33
  • @RichieHindle: I could have looked up some favicons for example, but I just wanted to give examples for my concept. Anyway, thank you for explaining your downvote. – akarnokd Jul 18 '09 at 22:40

I disagree with this. I know what you mean, wanting to know why, but it's really only a click away.

Titles are already long as it is, and adding even more fluff to a title will just get in the way.


I feel that this is another in the line of "should tags be duplicated in titles" and I think that if we're not duplicating "feature-request" etc in titles, then we shouldn't duplicate closed state either. What's wrong with a tag to indicate closed state?

  • I really don't care where it's stored. I'd just like a way to get the information for a whole list of questions without clicking through on each one. It's a small thing, really... i suppose i could always write a Greasemonkey script... ;-) – Shog9 Jul 20 '09 at 19:03
  • I totally see your point. Where IS greasemonkey when you need him? – Jeff Yates Jul 20 '09 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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