2

The question Can spaceships really explode in space? very clearly violates our policy on real-world scientific explanations. Why is it still open?

| |
  • Well the fact that it's 6 years old might have something to do with it. I have no idea what the rules were back then...but still! – Paulie_D Oct 3 '17 at 13:38
  • Hmm we seem to have asked a similar question... If you however look at the date, it was asked 5 years before the policy was established. – Edlothiad Oct 3 '17 at 13:55
  • 5
    Sorely tempted to post an answer that just says "It's not". – Valorum Oct 3 '17 at 15:28
1

This question was not initially close when it was asked because it was asked before the Real-world science explanations(RWSE) policy was established and for the first 4 years and 3 months it was an on-topic question. Between this post and some more recent posts there were thousands of Star Wars questions burying this post and keeping it out of sight, this meant after the policy it was effectively hidden and not likely that anyone stumbled across it to close it.

The last time this post was acted on was 1 month ago. Where the post went through the close vote queue and was left open. Why it was not closed there, it would seem three users made a mistake.

Before August 2017, it had received little to know attraction and there was only one action preformed on the question after our RWSE policy was established. An upvote, possibly from a user specifically looking for that question, who should've flagged it for closure, however may not have known about our policy. Prior to that, it had received one up-vote and two answers three months prior to the policy and two other answers as well as 3 upvotes two years before the policy.

From the above we can see quite clearly that this post has been hidden from the eyes of the (policy-learned) community, except for one user who had seen it, and maybe some other passers-by. The close vote queue it went through was unsuccessful in closing it (even though it should have closed it). Today however it was successful and has been closed.

| |
  • I was going to correct "out of site", but it actually still works. +1 – DCOPTimDowd Oct 3 '17 at 18:01
  • 2
    -1. If it's off-topic now, then it's off-topic. You should never have to consider the age of a question when deciding whether or not to close it. – Rand al'Thor Oct 3 '17 at 18:17
  • bans Ed from review queues for voting to leave open :-P – Rand al'Thor Oct 3 '17 at 18:18
  • 1
    @Edlothiad 1) I downvoted because this answer reads like a defense of the question, suggesting age/activity is relevant to its closure rather than saying outright that it should have been closed - not just based on your mistake in the review queue. 2) Who are "you people", and why are you being rude to us? 3) I was joking about banning you - hence the :-P in my previous comment. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 4) What does banning people from review have to do with elections? – Rand al'Thor Oct 3 '17 at 20:35
  • 2
    +1. A well reasoned explanation on why the question was left open for as long as it. Sometimes old post just get buried and then randomly resurface. – Skooba Oct 3 '17 at 21:02
  • 1
    1) Eh, fine, downvote removed after your edit. 2) You've been on SE long enough to know that rude comments are against the Be Nice policy and downvoting is not rude. 3) I think the policy did exist before, even if not explicitly discussed on meta. Like I said in some other comment, the help centre says questions of this or that type are off-topic and nothing about exemptions on the basis of age. Still, thanks for turning it into an explicit meta policy. 4) Huh? What domino? – Rand al'Thor Oct 3 '17 at 21:45

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