Re^2: Appealing a consideration?

[sleepingsquirrel]

A last thought. That node had been up for consideration for at least a week, maybe 2. Since apparently you'd noticed it, why did you wait until now, to complain?

Why would I complain earlier, when nothing had actually been done? I don't follow perlmonks politics closely, and quite frankly, I didn't think that there was a compelling reason to retitle, so I assumed that level headed janitors wouldn't change it. But now that its been put up again for consideration, you may take this node as an official complaint and plea not to change it. BTW, it was up for consideration for about 3 weeks and the last time I looked at it it had 8 keep/29 edit votes.

[tye]

Did I just miss it? Where is the reasoned argument?

Is your argument just "It's my node, I'll name it any dang thing I want to and you can't stop me!" ?

Do you have some reason why that is a good title for that node? I agree with jdporter that the title should at least mention "Haskel" and start with "Re:". The node doesn't embody "HaXml" and so should not be titled simply "HaXml". I think the title should make sense even when viewed out of context of the thread that it is in, which usually means that some fragment of the parent's title should appear in the title.

Node titles are integral to navigation, searching, and other tasks at the site. I'm all for respecting creativity even in titles but not without restrictions (for example, Re^2: Considering nodes for re-titling (haznav)). The node title is not just used as a place for the author to select what title to put on the node. It has too many other uses that are too important to not have some restrictions.

So if you have an argument as to why that node title is appropriate, then please make it. Please also listen to what others are saying about node titles.

If you just want to get into a shoving contest without reasoned argument, then we can certainly go down that road. I'm sure we could modify the site code to enforce that "Re:" must appear on all replies, for example. I don't encourage such changes lightly, but I'd be for this particular one in part just to nix the quibbling over the point.

Q re nodes' subjects also contains some good points.

But I'd really like to hear what you have to say. Why do you think that node title is so good?

[castaway]

Because you'd been following recent considerations, and noticed that 'bad' ones were being made? Or so you claimed up there somewhere.

Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself some in this thread. Anyway, the reason is, because afterwards its kind of daft, in my opinion. Say something about the consideration already, not about the retitling after the fact.

I did say 'reasoned argument', so where is it?

C.