3

I posted my question How are awards given in the editing category? after seeing How are the best director award winners chosen?

The second question is related to how awards are given to directors' performances, which is similar to my question: I am asking about editing performances. But my question was put on-hold, why so?

| |
  • 1
    A lot can change in three years. What was acceptable then might not be acceptable now, especially when that question asks "how" and yours feels more like "why wasn't my favourite selected?" – muru Jul 18 '16 at 14:07
  • It doesn't matter if his question feels like that, the question asks for, and has a objective, on-topic answer. And Requiem for a Dream is from 2000, which wouldn't even be in the same awards year, @muru so they are not whining about their favorite not winning. – cde Jul 18 '16 at 22:46
  • @cde maybe so. I didn't vote there. I'm guessing the reason why it was closed. – muru Jul 19 '16 at 6:00
3

It shouldn't be. It's an objective question that asks for an objective answer related to the film industry. While we may not know all the rules or criteria, it can be answered in a completely objective way. I edited it to clear that up, and Voted to reopen.

| |
4

Now first of all as a general remark, a different question being open is never a reason for another question to stay open, too. Neither can nor should the close-voters look at 3-years old questions and assess in which way new questions are similar/different to determine on-topicness. However, old questions can very well be a signal for a perceived inconsistency as serve as an entry point for a discussion about your question's fate, as it is the case here. So thanks for bringing the issue to meta.

Indeed your question is quite similar. However, questions like this, while maybe objective at their core, can run the danger of being worded too subjectively and not giving much of a motivation for what the question is really looking for, especially when it is arguing about the win of one film over the other. This might not necessarily be what the question complains/asks about, but at the end of the day it largely comes down to proper wording, especially in edge cases that can easily look opinionated. And calling the question "primarily opinion-based" yourself in the question might not have helped that case.

I would agree, though, that your question is at its core a (largely) objective one and might have been judged and handled a bit too swiftly by the close-voters (including me), especially when editing is preferred over close-voting if edits can already make a question more on-topic or less opinionated. And as the users who took the effort to improve your question by edits (which I want to thank them for) have shown, this seems to be the case here. I would thus agree that the question could be reopened after the revision, together with other members of the community that already voted to reopen it after the improvement.


As a side note, I would, however, generally ask any users that might be unsatisfied with a question being closed to refrain from calling the close-voters "jerks" in comments or wherever. Such comments will be flagged as offensive and removed.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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