Every community in the Stack Exchange network has a single objective: create the world's highest quality, most complete archive of information in whatever topic the site is about. The quality and integrity of the information compiled by this community is the reason this site is here.
Titles should be optimized for clarity, ease of understanding and ...
Personally, I reckon:
This is SE, not a clickbait site like Buzzfeed.
Titles should be as clear and searchable as possible.
Clickworthiness is no valid criterion for question quality.
There's no rule against tag info in titles.
There's no such thing as "misleading in a good way". Misleading is bad, always.
The amended title is deliberately, consciously bad....
I see nothing wrong with question titles including the text of the primary tag, as long as it occurs naturally. Modifying an example from the top of the newest questions page (for a game-of-thrones question), I'd be OK with something like this:
What is the difference between a warg and a skinchanger in Game of Thrones?
but would edit the following:
Because you included the word 'you'.
Any title with the words you, your, best, favorite/favourite, worst, and hardest get this warning. It's kind of outdated; see What algorithm does Stack Exchange use to determine if a question may be subjective? on Meta.SE.
Disclaimer: I'm far from a regular visitor here.
I saw this question in the HNQ, and my interest was piqued, so I clicked on it. I imagined a Skeptics-style question, but in different context, but not so narrow as just Interstellar. On second thought, perhaps what I imagined as being asked would be more suited to World Building.
And then I saw it was ...
Tag names: English.
Tag names are important, because we can only put one name there (perhaps adding others as synonyms). We should use the English name there, because we're an English-language site. As for what kind of English: in general, network-wide consensus is to use US English for tag names, although I think (can't find the meta now) that there's some ...
Having a good title (concise, searchable, good representation of the question/problem) is more important than anything else, so if excluding spoilers from your title results in a bad title than you should include said spoilers. However, if you can come up with a good title which excludes titles then that's great, feel free to use it.
Something else to ...
From what I can see, you really have two separate concerns:
Should question titles be "clickbait-y", with an eye towards improving view/vote count?
I have thoughts on each of these, but I'll handle them separately.
I don't see a problem with this; askers are welcome to choose whatever title they want (within reason). If ...
Use English as much as possible
The site is English speaking all over so English should be used as much as possible. Tags should most certainly be in English. However, questions and tag wikis are fine to mention the original name of the work too though I’d lean towards using English first most of the time.
tl;dr: No, there's no rule against it. But, it will probably annoy a lot of users, and that's probably not the effect you were going for.
Markdown syntax does not work in question titles, but people try to use it all the time. Whoever edited your post likely assumed you were trying to use markdown without realizing that it did not work, and was trying to "...
I think there are quite a few misconceptions around your question, so lets get to them:
Your assertion that the title it "clickbait" is misleading. The generally accepted meaning of "clickbait" is a title that is designed to attract attention to a post at the expense of quality or accuracy. There was nothing inaccurate or low-quality about the post in ...
I think this question is kinda loaded, since I don't consider the title to be click-bait and only "misleading" as a sunday newspaper comic joke. That is to say, it's a slight misdirection, in that your first reaction to such a statement is to say "WELL OF COURSE WE LANDED ON THE MOON". This title plays on reactions, but isn't lying to anyone. The context is ...
(I feel like my answer is more like a long comment, but I wasn't sure which of the other answers it would fit on.)
I think "Were the moon landings faked?" is misleading and it would be better if the title made it clear the question is talking about moon landings as depicted in a movie.
It's misleading because moon landings really happened (or were really ...
Yes. Rather, the question should be all that is necessary to understand exactly what the OP is looking for.
Let's break down the three elements of a question post (as I see them).
The hook. The title should provide a good general overview of what the OP is looking for. It doesn't need to get into the nitty gritty details or criteria, but ...
The most recent occurrence of this with one of your posts seems to be this. Which did go through my feed once when your title was edited, and again when you rolled back. The person who edited however made the note "rm exces capitalization in title", which (barring his input) seems to me that he didn't think it was a style change, but rather that it was ...
I feel that this can be solved by better editing, easily. Rough approximations:
Why wasn't capturing Superman sufficient for Zod's goal?
What were the necessary requirements (ingredients?) for McCoy to make his serum?
This doesn't make the title sound like a Jeopardy wannabe, while maintaining lack of spoilers.
Yes you should indicate that you're trying to identify a story, but there's no need to repeat the tag wholesale.
Good: Trying to find 70s space opera with knights with magical powers and glowing swords.
Bad: Story identification: 70s space opera with knights with magical powers and glowing swords.
The original spoiler guidelines established on meta stated
Avoid spoilers completely in the title. This doesn't mean using [REDACTED] or silly things like that, it means coming up with another way to summarise the question.
Avoid spoilers in the first chunk of the question, because this text is often included (even if it is in spoiler tags) in links ...
There are five tabs underneath /questions, specified with an optional argument appended to the URL:
If you have /questions bookmarked (without the argument), the next time you visit the site you'll re-open the tab that you visited most recently (I imagine SE sets a cookie to store this information).
I see absolutely no implicit problem with having one or more tags in the title, if it helps the title make sense, or makes it easier to search on. In fact, it happens quite frequently (particularly in Story ID questions, since the title will often be something like "Help me identify this TV show or movie", and will also likely be tagged tv and/or movies).
This presents a great number of issues.
First and foremost, it’s not really so helpful. As you say, its usefulness is primarily limited to the case of TV shows that are released in one big bundle on Netflix, not the majority of TV shows. But we’d need to have a consistent policy, so this would affect all TV shows.
Nearly as important, which episode ...
I was the one who reverted the title, not the OP. The original title was "Why didn't Bruce Banner simply tell Natasha that “I am NOT single”?", which Nerrolken changed to "Why didn't Bruce Banner try this?". I believe this was a well-intentioned edit, presumably caused by the OP's profile, which claims he/she intends to spoil the movie Avengers: Age of ...
No, it's not mandatory
Ideally, question titles should describe the thing that's being asked. Usually that takes the form of a question, but it needn't always.
A good, top-of-mind example is Help me find this robot cartoon character. Yes, that title could be re-written as "Who is this robot cartoon character?", but the benefit is marginal at best.
In general, I agree with everyone else. However, since NominSim brought up this edit history, I'm going to disagree and use it as an example. Here's several possibilities for capitalization:
Do Wizarding Photographs Kept in Muggle Homes Violate the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy?
Do Wizarding photographs kept in Muggle homes violate the ...
In my opinion, the edited question titles you mention are harmful and should be reverted to their more descriptive titles (or better titles should be written for them). Using common sense, of course: actively trying to spoil plot points in a title is bad. The goal should be to write descriptive, non-generic question titles.
The purpose of a question title ...
For me, it depends on what question I'm answering, and where the media originates. Since we are a site based on English, I always try to provide the English title, whether or not that was the original language. If a work originated in a non-English title, unless it's become more known under that title, I give the original title, followed by the English one, ...
Avoiding spoiler is just a question of politeness. It's not everybody that is annoyed by spoiler, but we must respect those who do. The thing we should ask is how much damage a title containing a spoiler could do VS how much damage a more vague, but spoiler-free title could do.
I think a spoiler in the title of a question is insidious. You could get hit by ...
The caption next to the box says Title, so I am personally fine with either the title version (with capitalized major words) or the sentence version which reads like a regular question. Here is what Jeff Atwood said about editting (and edit wars) http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-great-edit-wars/
As it says on the sidebar of every edit page, here’...
Clickbait is a lot like jalapeños. It's good in controlled amounts.
Downvote me all you like - serial downvotes will be reversed. I like a healthy amount of clickbait in my *.SE diet. I love a good laugh. If a title writer is clever enough to come up with a good clickbait title, he deseves my upvote. It just shouldn't become everything.