Content deleted Content added
Line 66:
::The article is about a published work, so we go with the title of that work. I don't know any exception to that. If you had made it about the ''content'', then there would be more options, but you made it about the paper itself, so I think there is really only one choice. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I am inclined to keep the present title. @Trovatore: Have you attempted to find out which articles on published works exist on Wikipedia and examine them to see whether some Wikipedia article titles differ from the titles of the published works? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 01:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I'm not sure how I would really do that except by serially looking through articles on published works. I'm not aware of any exception.
:::: Can we agree that, as article titles, ''descriptions'' are inferior to ''names'', assuming a canonical name exists? I would think that's kind of obvious, actually. Sometimes there is no agreed name, and you have to fall back to a description, but that's an unfortunate necessity. But pretty much every published work has a name, namely its title, so I don't see any justification for titling this article with a description. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 19:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
| |||