monkdiscuss
sauoq
<p>A newbie user posted [Emergency! Our guestbook is getting trashed by HTML!] For some reason, [kutsu] considered this node suggesting it be retitled to "Disallowing HTML Comments for a Chatroom." Out of the first 6 voters, I alone voted to keep it as is.</p>
<p>Hey folks, this is not a reasonable retitling request. It's a really bad one in fact.</p>
<p>The original title refers to a "guestbook" which was appropriate because the question was about the Guestbook from Matt's Script Archive. I gather that the poster has been using it as a chatroom sort of application, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, the title replacement seems to suggest that the question is about <code><!-- HTML comments --></code> but that's not really the case. The question is really about user comments that include HTML. Nevermind that the replacement suggestion is also <strong>bland</strong> and <strong>boring</strong>.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that you should have a good reason before you consider a node for retitling and, when you do, make a good suggestion for its replacement too. Many nodes need to be retitled because they are too general or offend the eye with all caps, too much punctuation, or what-have-you. Nodes that are formatted nicely and contain one or two keywords that successfully hint at the node's content should be left as is. A node's title is also often a small creative expression on the part of the writer. This is a Good Thing™. Not only does it keep things interesting, it helps to differentiate a node from all the others with similar content. So editing it should be done with forethought and respect.</p>
<!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only -->
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-182681">
<pre>
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
</pre>
</div></div>
<p><small>Considered by [hossman]: "retitle: 'Advice on consideration of properly titled nodes'" Final vote: (keep/edit/delete) 19/7/1.<br />
Unconsidered by [davido]: The majority has spoken.</small></p>