The question at Need to convert a date into a dayname has been put on hold for "unclear what you're asking".

It is tagged spreadsheet (among other things), and I think it is quite likely that it is about Google spreadsheets.

If we assume that, the question is very easy to understand, and, in my view, also a quite decent question, which could be useful for other people having the same problem.

Is it OK for me to edit the question (primarily cleaning up the tags, adding google-spreadsheets, and giving it a less confusing title) to reflect what I think it is about, or would that be "clearly conflicts with the author's intention"?

Another point: The question, as it stands, is also perfectly valid for Microsoft Excel Online and Zoho Sheet, as they use the same functions and syntax.

  • 1
    I would be happy to reopen it if we know for sure. I implicitly trust your judgement on this and many other matters, but I would also like to have a culture in which the OP takes responsibility for their own question. Suffice to say, if the OP doesn't add the clarification over the next day or so, we can revisit this. – jonsca Aug 17 '17 at 23:53

Assumptions are a 'slippery slope' and if permissible it is predictable that "pretty blatantly obvious" will, over time, slide past "probably" and even "possibly" to "whatever the Q needs to be to fit my A".

Two users considered the Q ambiguous enough to merit a Close vote in this example. And that is out of 17 views, which includes me - and I would quite likely have VTC'd too (though you may recall I had a mental failure at that time!).

If you were sufficiently confident that OP meant Google Sheets I think it may have been best that you had edited the Q to that effect (at the time of answering). Possibly with a Comment (or Edit Summary) explaining what/why.

The Q is {on hold}. OP has, if still interested, the chance to clarify and if that includes mention of any of the three apps you refer to (and possibly others) all well and good. However (a) OP might have found a web app that does not behave 'conventionally' in this respect and (b) in times to come a viewer/user might find such an app.

Experience on SO has shown me that even when say tagged there is no guarantee the Q is not really about Excel (though much more often the other way around!). There it has proved 'dangerous' to assume anything about the relevant software as Qs, even when tagged , have often turned out to be about LibreOffice Calc, OpenOffice Calc, Numbers or other. See for example: excel: How to find GLB and LUB from a column in libre calc - whose Title may be enough to spare you even a click.

However, if not prepared to await clarification (which is a bit of shame because then we may never know whether, if never forthcoming, OP has the A required so has not bothered to clarify, or simply lost interest) at the very least I would recommend stating any assumptions (sadly they are often required) in an A.

Finally, if OP does not clarify during the hold period, I would recommend rewriting the Q to whatever extent necessary to end up with a Q&A pair that 'match', though this may only be practical where either only one A remains at the time the Q goes to {hold}, or all As have made the same assumption/s.

The trouble is, where assumptions are involved, it is amazing how often others don't all make the same ones. Many is the time I have not even realised I was making an assumption, until others have indicated a very different interpretation.

You must log in to answer this question.

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