1

Can I use Trebuchet MS font for my manuscript on arvix?

I strongly disliked the question, but it seems to me that it is completely clear what is being asked. The only visible "request" for clarification is pointing out a typo.

Why was this close reason used by four voters?

7
  • It's likely because the OP didn't clarify whether by arvix they meant arXiv.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    Jun 28, 2022 at 12:47
  • 1
    @MassimoOrtolano To me, that was totally unambiguous.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 28, 2022 at 22:04
  • 2
    @AnonymousPhysicist - well, the existence of viXra and the fact the OP is a high school student (making submission to arXiv somewhat more difficult) adds to the general uncertainty.
    – Jon Custer
    Jun 28, 2022 at 22:45
  • 1
    also, arvix was used throughout the question (4 times), so it is unlikely to have been a typo.
    – Sursula
    Jun 29, 2022 at 12:58
  • @Sursula-they- It's still a typo if you do it consistently. I do not think it is plausible that the asker intended "arvix".
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 29, 2022 at 21:02
  • merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typo
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 29, 2022 at 21:02
  • 1
    @JonCuster Even if they meant viXra (not a plausible interpretation), it does not change the question.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 29, 2022 at 21:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

As noted in the comments, people presumably used this close reason because they were unclear whether "arvix" was supposed to be arXiv or something else.

Personally, I suspect they meant arXiv. I feel that the best practice would have been to:

  • edit the question to correct this;
  • edit the question to ask about "font requirements" generally, rather than a particular font;
  • leave the question open / vote to reopen.

That said: I do not think this is a very valuable question generally, and since the OP did not respond to our requests for clarification, I presume it is not very valuable for them either. So, I personally do not think trying to salvage this question is a good use of my time. (Others may disagree, and can make these edits and vote to reopen if they like).

Based on your tone in the comments, I would suggest that this post was not made simply to ask for clarification; rather, you feel that these close votes were incorrect and in response, you would like us to....do something, I am not clear what. In future, I would suggest that you should (1) tell us upfront what proposal you are making, and (2) explain why you think the problem is of sufficient importance to merit a community-wide discussion rather than the usual vote-to-close/vote-to-reopen procedure.

2
  • The action I wanted you to take was to explain what happened and what should have happened, which you did well. No further action is needed, in my opinion.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 30, 2022 at 21:07
  • "explain why you think the problem is of sufficient importance to merit a community-wide discussion rather than the usual vote-to-close/vote-to-reopen procedure." The usual procedure allows users to select the wrong close reason without explanation. Discussion addresses that. Also, this is not a community-wide discussion.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Jun 30, 2022 at 21:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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