# It'd be nice if I could delete my threads



## Genecks

I just created a thread and figured it would have been better off placed somewhere else. Too bad I can't delete it, or else I would and recreate it in the right section.

Anyone ever going to implement a delete feature?


----------



## Grekh

I've thought of this a number of times. I think it's a good idea!


----------



## cuchuflete

Just click that.


----------



## ErOtto

cuchuflete said:


> Just click that.


 
I think that is not the point. This will (probably) put "more (innecesary) work" on the mod shoulders.

I also think Genecks's question would be an improvement if the "creator" of a thread has "more control" over it.

There is another related point I thought about a while ago. If the "creator" of a thread has the possibility to close "his" thread when he thinks the answer is given, this could avoid (sometimes) further discussions which often go "off-topic", without the need mods to take part.

Regards
ErOtto


----------



## cubaMania

My opinion:
Creator able to delete a thread?--OK, but ONLY if there have not yet been any responses.
Creator able to close a thread?--NO, definitely not a good idea.  When I provide answers in a thread it is not intended for just one person, it is a contribution to the forum intended for anyone interested in the terminology, now or upon future searches.


----------



## replicante7

ErOtto said:


> If the "creator" of a thread has *the possibility to close "his" thread when he thinks the answer is given,* this could avoid (sometimes) further discussions which often go "off-topic", without the need mods to take part.




Hi, ErOtto.

I guess that it is a good idea.


----------



## ErOtto

cubaMania said:


> Creator able to close a thread?--NO, definitely not a good idea. When I provide answers in a thread it is not intended for just one person, it is a contribution to the forum intended for anyone interested in the terminology, now or upon future searches.


 
I seems I was not able to express what I meant.  
I was thinking about all this "neverending threads" discussing things after the question was clearly answered by many foreros. I think we have all enough maturity to decide whether to close a thread or not (as mods also do). Or, at least, we should have.  

Regards
ErOtto


----------



## cubaMania

ErOtto, I think you expressed yourself well, but I just disagree.  Think of this:  if as you say "we all have enough maturity to decide whether to close a thread or not" then why don't you think that we also all have enough maturity to know whether to continue posting to a thread?  Why should one non-moderator person be able to close off discussion if others have (or believe they have) something to contribute.  I agree that once in a while people will post unnecessary additions to a thread, but I think that is much less a problem than to have someone be able to cut other people off.  Why do you think that single person is supposedly more able to make that decision and take control?


----------



## replicante7

cubaMania said:


> Creator able to close a thread?--NO, definitely not a good idea.  When I provide answers in a thread it is not intended for just one person, it is a contribution to the forum intended for anyone interested in the terminology, now or upon future searches.



But a closed thread is availaible for searching and reading, doesn't it? Am I wrong? 
I think that if someone is interested in some new topic or new "looking" arisen into the closed thread, he could open a new thread with a new specific title. But maybe I am guessing too much....



cubaMania said:


> My opinion:
> Creator able to delete a thread?--OK, but ONLY if there have not yet been any responses



I would prefer closing, no deleting. Maybe it would be an interesting topic.


----------



## ireney

First of all deleting a thread just because a member had his/her question asked means that the next person who has the same question must ask again and be given the same answer again.  

Secondly, what if, after a long discussion someone has a new insight on the matter or has a question to ask that should actually be asked in this particular thread? There are (relatively) very few questions that can have an absolutely definite answer and these do not usually (if ever really) generate long threads. 
I for one, wouldn't dare to close any thread of mine in for example English Only although I speak English rather fluently. I wouldn't even dream about it in any other language which I speak less fluently than that. I would however dare do it in Greek since I know I know Greek well enough to be able to decide that the new posts are just a repetition of opinions already voiced. Of course that does not mean that if someone feels that he/she has something new to offer he/she cannot PM me with a request to open it up again nor does it mean that ONLY moderators have the ability to judge fairly.There might be some new insight to be offered by a member who wasn't active when the answer posed by me was answered or who didn't notice the thread in time. Or he/she might disagree with the answer given and a "neverending discussion" ensue. It might not be of interest to me but it might be for others. Someone has to decide that the discussion is not going anywhere anymore though and I prefer to leave that to the moderators. You see, some people may actually decide to close a thread if only because the discussion is of no interest to them (in which case they can just un-subscribe and not be bothered by it any more ).

P.S. I know I am a moderator but remember that I am not an omni-moderator  In fact in most forums I participate (or lurk) as a non-moderating member and that all moderators are getting moderated.


----------



## Jana337

By design, deletion of the first post destroys the whole thread. That's why only moderators have the right to do it. If you open a thread and discover the reply two seconds after that, simply report it.

Closing threads by their authors: Technical questions aside, this goes against the policy of the forum. We often close or delete frequently asked questions and refer posters to older threads about the same topic. Members are welcome to add their doubts to existing threads if the topic is identical.


----------



## Benjy

Stop for a second and think about the number of people the mods irratate by doing general housekeeping. They are currently quite few in number. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if all thread starters were given moving and deletion priviledges (We get around 7500 posts a day)?

If you want a thread moved it is a 30 second task for a mod to assess and move it. I get so few of these that it doesn't even really register on the time I spend on moderation. So flag away!


----------



## ErOtto

cubaMania said:


> ...Why should one non-moderator person be able to close off discussion if others have (or believe they have) something to contribute...


 
For 3 reasons:

1. mods will have less work. I'm pretty sure they have enough to do.  
2. If I start a thread, why I can't close _my_ thread while mods can?
3. Others who have (or believe they have) something to contribute, as you said, 
can anytime start a new thread if they think they have to (as replicante7 has pointed out)

But, at least, this is only my "comment and suggestion".  

Regards
ErOtto


----------



## cubaMania

ErOtto said:


> For 3 reasons:
> 
> 1. mods will have less work. I'm pretty sure they have enough to do.
> 2. If I start a thread, why I can't close _my_ thread while mods can?
> 3. Others who have (or believe they have) something to contribute, as you said,
> can anytime start a new thread if they think they have to (as replicante7 has pointed out)
> 
> But, at least, this is only my "comment and suggestion".
> 
> Regards
> ErOtto


 
1.  I think this would create more work, with disputes between people who want a thread closed and those who don't.
2.  That is just my point.  You think it is YOUR thread.  I do not.  I think it belongs to the forum.
3.  When people have more to add on a topic, it is better to have it all in one thread than to have the topic opened up again and again.

But as you say, it is only our opinions.  You have your opinion, I have mine.


----------



## DDT

Hi ErOtto,

Some colleagues have already specified why only moderators are enabled to delete threads. I'd just like to add that should anyone be able to close and/or delete threads, spammers and trolls might misuse this feature and create problematic issues

DDT


----------



## cyanista

ErOtto said:


> 2. If I start a thread, why I can't close _my_ thread while mods can?



Being the thread starter doesn't automatically make you the thread owner. 

An excerpt from the rules:


> 54. When a message is placed in WordReference or its forums, you are granting an irrevocable license to the site to use it in perpetuity.


----------



## Jana337

cubaMania said:


> 1.  I think this would create more work, with disputes between people who want a thread closed and those who don't.
> 2.  That is just my point.  You think it is YOUR thread.  I do not.  I think it belongs to the forum.





cyanista said:


> Being the thread starter doesn't automatically make you the thread owner.
> 
> An excerpt from the rules:
> 
> 
> 
> 54. When a message is placed in WordReference or its forums, you are granting an irrevocable license to the site to use it in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

I am sending three chocolate coins to each of you.


----------



## ErOtto

cyanista said:


> Being the thread starter doesn't automatically make you the thread owner.
> 
> An excerpt from the rules:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zitat:
> 54. When a message is placed in WordReference or its forums, you are granting an irrevocable license to the site to use it in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

 
You know perfectly what I meant by saying "_my_ thread".  
You didn't "read" my post, you have "interpreted" it.  

But, if you read rule 54, it says that I am "granting an license", so it implies that I am the owner.   

But that is not the point. I agree with all the others that we need rules and limitations, and "some kind of" police.  

As I said before, this is what I think... and I have noticed that I am in minority.   

Regards
ErOtto


----------



## replicante7

Jana337 said:


> I am sending three chocolate coins to each of you.


That is not fair, Jana.  ¡Chocolate coins for everybody!



ErOtto said:


> You know perfectly what I meant by saying "_my_ thread".


Hi, ErOtto
I guess that if you start a *new thread *under a *clear title*, explaining your idea about closing threads (not deleting or moving), it could be possible getting more answers about this point (sure in both senses: positive and negative).
But you should explain it in a way very far from expressions which could foreros understanding that:



cyanista said:


> Being the thread starter doesn't automatically make you the thread owner.



I haven't understood your idea in that sense. But  I am not very good in English!
Regards to everybody.


----------



## Jana337

"You are not the thread owner" means that you cannot decide about the future of the thread (whether it will be closed, deleted, merged with another, renamed etc.).


----------



## replicante7

Jana337 said:


> "You are not the thread owner" means that you cannot decide about the future of the thread (whether it will be closed, deleted, merged with another, renamed etc.).


Thanks, Jana.
(In this case, my ignorance it isn't due to a deep illusion need. It´s just plain ignorance, without  any  kind  of intelligence supporting it.) 
 Thanks, again.


----------



## badgrammar

I think it would be a very bad idea to give forero the right to close threads that they have started because they feel their question has been answered.  It would also be pointless, because it is not as if having a thread still open on a given language-related issue could actually be a nuisance for anyone.

I try to use the famous "search tool" and have dug up numerous old threads containing "case-closed" answers that, in fact, were erroneous or that lacked information or clarity (meaning that it may have appeared that the answer was correct and complete, so a thread starter "could" have closed it under that system).  It is great to have all the answers to a particular question in one thread, because if you start another thread on the same topic, you would just have to wade through the same debate again, instead of building on it.  

I have just one question, then...  Why on earth would you want to close a thread?


----------



## lsp

2¢ more on the subject :

So many times a question is asked in the I-E forum where I hang out, and a few non-natives make their attempts at an answer. We _usually_ identify ourselves as such, and ask the thread starter to wait for corrections or confirmation from more advanced speakers, if not natives... but not always. The the thread starter comes back and thanks us for our speedy replies. Often the natives or more advanced speakers arrive and point out errors in our attempts. If the thread starter had been able to close the thread because the replies were good enough for his purposes, we (and future searchers) would miss out on a lot of learning.

And on the subject of searching... now that so many people recommend searching, and alert mods to merge threads with older ones on the same topic, it's neater and more efficient to find comprehensive answers to a question in one thread, and ask any additional questions in that one spot. I hate getting pages of search results and having to wade through every thread. One thread per topic is best, and for that to happen the threads pretty much have to stay open.


----------



## badgrammar

Isp is on spot with hat he said, and I would add that answers to some questions are very complex, and sometimes, for example in a translation request, there are a number of ways to interpret something.  So having multiple responses and interpretations is beneficial to the next person searching on the topic - the explanation that fit the thread-starter's needs may not fit in every case (context, context  ), and so it is great to be able to continue to add varied interpretations and responses about the same word, phrase or whatever, that may fit another case.


----------



## fenixpollo

Here are some previous threads where we discussed the virtues of never closing threads.

*Expired threads* . . . . . *Digging up the dead* . . . . . *suggestion: tick for solved thread* . . . . . *Picking up Old threads with no good reason*

In my view, there is no such thing as a thread that has "been answered" definitively -- there's always the possibility of someone else adding something new and informative.


----------



## furfeathers

cubaMania said:


> My opinion:
> Creator able to delete a thread?--OK, but ONLY if there have not yet been any responses.
> Creator able to close a thread?--NO, definitely not a good idea. When I provide answers in a thread it is not intended for just one person, it is a contribution to the forum intended for anyone interested in the terminology, now or upon future searches.


Here's what I think:

Creator able to delete a thread:  
Creator able to close a thread:  
Creator able to move a thread:  Only if it has no posts! (Or people will get  !)


PS: Unless I am mistaken, a closed thread can still be viewed!


----------



## TrentinaNE

If you want a thread closed, deleted, or moved, please contact a moderator of the forum in which it resides and make your best case.  

Elisabetta


----------

