-11

re: How may I avoid ParametricPlot3D clipping?

"This question already has an answer here" True, and useful.

"marked as duplicate by Mr.Wizard♦ 4 hours ago" It is not a duplicate.

"This question has been asked before" Er, not at the instance cited. What's true is "A similar question has been asked before" but both are actually irrelevant.

"and already has an answer." True, and useful.

| |
  • 1
    I don't disagree that [duplicate] is potentially confusing or discouraging. However this Meta site is not the place to complain as we have no control over this; it is a network-wide Stack Exchange issue. Therefore you need to post on meta.stackexchange.com instead. However look carefully for a duplicate first as I imagine that you are not the first. – Mr.Wizard Jul 30 '15 at 5:46
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it cannot be addressed on Meta Mathematica; it is a network-wide Stack Exchange issue. – Mr.Wizard Jul 30 '15 at 5:46
  • At least in this case the "off-topic" close actually means that this time. – Mr.Wizard Jul 30 '15 at 5:47
  • "This question does not appear to be about Mathematica® Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center." Er, some mistake? It is clearly about "the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center." I see nothing in the help centre to prohibit it. – ChrisJJ Jul 30 '15 at 23:02
  • "I don't disagree that [duplicate] is potentially confusing or discouraging. However this Meta site is not the place to complain" I deliberately avoided mentioning [duplicate], expecting that it could not be changed here. I mentioned as "marked as duplicate by Mr.Wizard♦ 4 hours ago", hoping it could be changed here. – ChrisJJ Jul 31 '15 at 0:59
  • 2
    Marking your question as a duplicate instead of easily found in the documentation was my attempt at being helpful and responsive to your concern. I assumed that surely you would not be complaining about that but instead about the ambiguity of the label [duplicate] itself, which is a topic for the main Meta site as already explained. You acknowledge that "and already has an answer" is "True, and useful." and it has already been explained to you that this therefore may be considered a [duplicate]. So what are you complaining about if not the particular word "duplicate"? – Mr.Wizard Jul 31 '15 at 4:17
8

Duplicate here has two possible meanings:

  1. identical question has been asked,
  2. different question, but identical cause or resolution

There are plenty examples of the first, and these questions are usually closed as duplicates, and deleted, or merged, if there are worthy answers.

The second case is more interesting as they are different questions, but answering them is actually a duplication of effort already applied to previous questions. Sometimes, if they generate answers, they provide insights that the original did not have, but this is usually not the case. For your question, the only answer provided nothing new.

Additionally, the second case is interesting in one other respect: they provide different pathways to access the answer. Consider this question of mine, Automatically including custom stylesheet with notebook, closed as a duplicate, but it has enough unique characteristics that it remains undeleted. This is a good thing for finding things via search engine. StackExchange's goal is to provide good answers that are easily accessible, so every pathway helps.

Lastly, we have a limited number of close reasons available to us, so there will be some ambiguity in the use of any of them.

| |
  • 2
    Nicely said. I think the closure categories are meant to be somewhat broad and flexible but still have a focus. In support of your second case, the wording accompanying a "duplicate" includes, "If those answers do not fully address your question...." – Michael E2 Jul 30 '15 at 15:48
  • Duplicate here is being used as if it meant "different question, but identical cause or resolution". It doesn't. As any English dictionary will confirm. I think "marked as duplicate by Mr.Wizard" would better reworded "marked as answered elsewhere by Mr.Wizard". Not saying that's necessarily possible here. – ChrisJJ Jul 31 '15 at 1:02
  • 3
    @ChrisJJ no, you've missed the point. They are duplications of effort, therefor for the needs of the site, they are duplicates. Stop cherry-picking phrases, and read the entire post. – rcollyer Jul 31 '15 at 3:09
  • 3
    @ChrisJJ Once again if we tell you what a [duplicate] means you need to believe us. This seems to be at the heart of your discontent. What we tell you something means here supersedes what your dictionary says. Consider every term used here to be jargon peculiar to this site, and how it is defined here is all that matters. Where it is within my control I shall try to align this "jargon" with normal English meaning but that is not always possible, e.g. the case of "off-topic" that started this whole debacle. – Mr.Wizard Jul 31 '15 at 4:23
  • @Mr.Wizard "What we tell you something means here supersedes what your dictionary says. Consider every term used here to be jargon peculiar to this site". That's the first I've heard of it. Despite having read all your docs. I really think you need to mention this in the docs. I've been reading the meta responses as if they were in English, with no inking they are actually in Mathematicastackechangelish where the same words have different meanings :-) Thanks for the explanation. – ChrisJJ Aug 1 '15 at 1:03
  • @ChrisJJ You are welcome, and thank you for being receptive to it. I agree it should be mentioned somewhere, and I'll consider what might be done about that. Please understand that there is a foundational structure to Stack Exchange sites, along with network-wide software and embedded terminology, however individual sites are given a fairly wide berth of autonomy. The result of this is that our own culture, conventions, and policy are overlaid with that of the Stack Exchange network as a whole. (continued) – Mr.Wizard Aug 1 '15 at 1:20
  • Some issues are network wide ("off-topic" is confusing on other sites too) while some may be our own. We still operate within the guidelines of Stack Exchange but we may choose to interpret or apply things a little differently. That is part of the source of the peculiar meanings for things. Another is the changing meaning within the network itself. For example [Duplicate] used to officially mean "exact duplicate" but as it became clear that it was and/or should be applied to merely related questions with similar answers the wording was changed but the [duplicate] label retained. – Mr.Wizard Aug 1 '15 at 1:24
  • @ChrisJJ In another case the label was changed to clarify the reality of the situation. All closed (but not [duplicate]) questions used to be immediately marked [closed] which often had the affect of users abandoning that question and writing another one. This was changed instead to read [on-hold] (for a week if I recall correctly) to help to clarify that the hope is that the user would improve the question so that it could be reopened instead. --- In addition to our own (Mathematica) peculiarities we have to roll with the punches of changing netword-wide labels, wordings, etc. – Mr.Wizard Aug 1 '15 at 1:28
  • @Mr.Wizard 1) "For example [Duplicate] ... the wording was changed but the [duplicate] label retained". My question is not about the [duplicate] label. It is about the wording "marked as duplicate by Mr.Wizard♦ 4 hours ago" . Wording that has not changed for "merely related questions with similar answers". 2) Thanks for the explanation. – ChrisJJ Aug 1 '15 at 20:24

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