Talk:'Criminal in uniform': Senior London policeman jailed for attempting to frame Iraqi

Title
Why the "'Criminal in uniform':" bit? --SVTCobra 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It draws attention to the branding by a senior official, and in a way that interests the viewer to read on and see who said that. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Senior London policeman jailed" doesn't do that? --SVTCobra 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't a quote, so no. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, i don't think the "criminal in uniform" bit is really needed. It is redundant to the words "policeman jailed", which pretty much says it all imho. I don't see how it would really interest the reader much more to have that in there. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will revert back to this, up to 3RR. This is a good title. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't see this as sensationalism? It's a tagline, at best. Is that how we are now appealing for readers? --SVTCobra 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the quote was fabricated, it would certainly be sensational. However, this is the words of the chair of the IPCC - you can rest assured that the words were carefully chosen. I would far prefer a balance less towards the dusty, dull-as-ditchwater, insipid, and instantly fogettable factual titles; not into Daily Mail sensationalism territory, but towards a little encouragement to prompt people to read the story when it pops up on Facebook/Twitter/GNews. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [Add] It certainly isn't, as Wikipedia defines it, a "tagline". --Brian McNeil / talk 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with SVTCobra. At the very least, the quote is redundant and lengthens the title without adding any info to it. I don't think it quite qualifies as "sensationalism", just unprofessional. I'm not at all a fan of the "use odd/funny titles to attract readers" strategy; we're not supposed to artificially try to make things exciting, it's our job to report on things factually and to-the-point. Just my two pence, cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikipedia. Drop the Dwayne Dibbley triple-thick-condom boring titles and use a little creativity. Or do you like writing for an audience of twelve? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, I'm full aware that this isn't Wikipedia, I don't see what all that has to do with any of this. It's not an issue of "creativity", my opinion is that we should be as concise and factual as possible, even at the risk of sounding "dull as dishwater" as you indicated. I believe that's the entire goal of Wikinews, to be *different* than the MSM. Again, the title repeats itself unnecessarily and I believe it's somewhat unprofessional at best, borderline sensationalism at worst. But, this discussion seems to now be travelling in circles, and we are repeating ourselves. Can we get some outside opinion into this? Tempodivalse [talk]  18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea, but you can get me :p. There is little point writing news that nobody will read. The title still hasn't repeated itself; it contains a quote and facts. These are entirely individual elements and to say they are one and the same somewhat misrepresents Mr Hardwick's stance. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that the message "criminal in uniform:" is already adequately conveyed by "policeman jailed". And, I still have to disagree with the mindset that "we'll only get readers by putting up bizarre titles". Just IMO though, don't really feel strongly about it. :-b Tempodivalse [talk]  18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't call it bizarre. Only last night you were in IRC describing a sister project I could mention as taking its rules and regulations to an absurd length. There is nothing wrong with attempting to engage our readers; we are not drones and we do not write automatic, formulaic repeats. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, when I was talking about "bizarre", I wasn't really referring to this instance in particular, just in general. There's nothing wrong with engaging our readers, I actually like when we use punchy, newsy-text as long as it remains concise and factual. I'm mainly opposed to this specific headline from a stylistic aspect. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)