A newbie user posted Emergency! Our guestbook is getting trashed by HTML! For some reason, kutsu considered this node suggesting it be retitled to "Disallowing HTML Comments for a Chatroom." Out of the first 6 voters, I alone voted to keep it as is.

Hey folks, this is not a reasonable retitling request. It's a really bad one in fact.

The original title refers to a "guestbook" which was appropriate because the question was about the Guestbook from Matt's Script Archive. I gather that the poster has been using it as a chatroom sort of application, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, the title replacement seems to suggest that the question is about <!-- HTML comments --> but that's not really the case. The question is really about user comments that include HTML. Nevermind that the replacement suggestion is also bland and boring.

Bottom line is that you should have a good reason before you consider a node for retitling and, when you do, make a good suggestion for its replacement too. Many nodes need to be retitled because they are too general or offend the eye with all caps, too much punctuation, or what-have-you. Nodes that are formatted nicely and contain one or two keywords that successfully hint at the node's content should be left as is. A node's title is also often a small creative expression on the part of the writer. This is a Good Thing™. Not only does it keep things interesting, it helps to differentiate a node from all the others with similar content. So editing it should be done with forethought and respect.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Considered by hossman: "retitle: 'Advice on consideration of properly titled nodes'" Final vote: (keep/edit/delete) 19/7/1.
Unconsidered by davido: The majority has spoken.