Talk:Astronaut's baby born 200 miles below him

Title
While this title might sound more interesting, i kind of prefer the previous one; IMO it's not very clear with this title that the astronaut is a father, or that he became one while in space. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk]  16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus, it seems newlyborn isn't a real word. Newborn is correct. Den dodge  T\C 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't trust wiktionary to be comprehensive; I've found numerous words which are not in it, or meanings it does not cover. However, "newly-born" would have satisfied. @Tempo - the title is, in some part, an advert for the article; plays on words should be used where reasonable and not tacky-tabloid style. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because your modern spellchecker neglects to realise many words have been placed togather to make one for almost a century doesn't mean they aren't. Crewmembers and motorcoach are other examples that spring to mind. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh, I generally don't like puns or word-plays in headlines, especially when it makes them sound confusing (as in this instance). This title doesn't mention the most critical thing - that the astronaut became a father while in space - and it could be misinterpreted due to the phrasing (e.g.: the astronaut was orbiting the newlyborn). Tempodivalse  [talk]  18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * update: I was w:WP:bold and changed the title. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider that bold; I consider it dull as ditchwater in terms of a title. It also makes the error I was keen to avoid &mdash; implying he either had sex, or the child was born, in space. --Brian McNeil / talk
 * It might be less interesting, but at least it makes sense, which to me is more important. (Feel free to revert though, if you feel strongly about it.) I admit I didn't realise some of the other ways this title could have been interpreted though. Any ideas for a title that isn't ambiguous, but still contains the relevant info? Tempodivalse [talk]  19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Astronaut's baby born 200 miles below him was the first idea that struck me, but I'm up for better ideas. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still preferred the "in orbit" one. Too many redirects for me to be bothered changing it back. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Sandman's idea. The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's not lost in the mists of time, the title I put on this was "Shuttle astronaut in orbit over newlyborn". It is not just a word-play, but factually accurate.


 * 1) He is a "shuttle astronaut"
 * 2) He is "in orbit"
 * 3) The Shuttle does pass over the United States (or can be reasonably assumed to)
 * 4) His child, "newlyborn", is below him

I don't think a headline needs to totally make sense; we've seen some horrors from trying to do that, such as 60+ character titles. I will not dispute it is quite a fine line to tread, but not a decent into tabloid journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that your title is factually accurate, I'm just concerned that it can be misinterpreted easily, isn't specific enough, and could be confusing. IMHO, titles should make sense as much as is reasonably possible. The current title, I think, seems to be the best one suggested so far in terms of style an accuracy. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  01:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)