The question, What's a word for “to eliminate the need for”?, has been voted as a duplicate of Is there a word that means “make someone (or something) redundant”? which is itself closed as a general reference question. IMO, one or both of these questions needs reopening. I think that the questions are not exact duplicates in as much as one talks about the redundancy of the need for something while the other simply talks about the redundancy of something; a sufficiently distinct nuance.

In any case, we do entertain single word questions on this site and therefore the Dec '11 question ought to be reopened.

1 Answer 1


Ouch—that really shouldn't have happened. I didn't notice the original question was closed, so that one is reopened now.

As for whether or not they're duplicates or not—while they're not literally duplicates, I believe they are sufficiently the same question, which is why I voted to close it. I don't feel that strongly about it, so if the community wants to reopen it, that's fine by me.

  • I kinda thought this would happen! I also had no strong feelings about Robert Cartaino's original closure, but it doesn't seem right to leave the first one closed and the second one open. I certainly don't think OP's "distinction" justifies calling them different questions that should both be kept open. Jan 19, 2013 at 14:03
  • This is clearly the responsibility of the Department of Redundancy Department. Feb 13, 2013 at 12:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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