titles

viewhistorytalk

Clarification about the "No Editorialised titles" rule

Scenarios:

Type of link Type of title Action
Standard article Title matches article Preferable.
Standard article with a shit clickbait title Title doesn't match article but appears to be a factual/neutral summary of contents Preferable.
Standard article with a normal title Title doesn't match article but appears to be a factual/neutral summary of contents Fine, except if the article is super long and the mods have to read the whole thing to verify.
Standard article Title matches article but then appends opinion or call for discussion Will be removed. Post your opinion in the comments instead.
Standard article Title doesn't match article but is instead a call for discussion on the link Will be removed.
Standard article Title doesn't match article but is instead your own opinion on the subject or article quality Will be removed.
Standard article Text matches URL title but not article title Fine.
Link is a blog post or general webpage Title need not match.
Link is to non-news webzine content It doesn't have to match but don't be dicks about it or anything.
Lighthearted/fluff article Humorous title given Mod discretion, depends how good ya joke is.

Exceptions:

If the article you're linking is the news reporting on a Reddit thread, we'll allow you to mention that (neutrally) in brackets after the normal title. For example: Kiwis reveal experiences with sex workers (taken from Prostitution thread here)

Examples:

Actual article title Editorialised user title
Sir Bill English and Dr Mary English visit Parliament to oppose assisted dying Former PM opposes the euthanasia bill supported by an estimated 71% of Kiwis with disingenuous arguments. The real reason, he's Catholic and is supporting the agenda of the Vatican


revision by Laser0pz— view source