I would say that adding (regarding Trump) would add the needed clarification without incorrectly implying, as (of Trump) does, that it’s about trying to read Trump’s mind.
Spaceships? Cowboys?! This isn’t a documentary about lightning bugs?
Who’s come undone? Her? Who is she?
Who is this lady and why do I care about her portrait?
Gah! My kingdom for a descriptive title!
Republicans: why extremist candidates instead of viable ones?
Repubs, Repubs. Wherefore art thou not trying to win the presidential race?
I agree the first OP is a bit vague - understanding about what?
I agree “(of Trump)” is not a great addition. The question certainly isn’t about Trump’s thinking, which that kinda sounds like. It’s also not limited to thinking about Trump - Cruz is also listed as a WTF candidate.
I kind of like LHOD’s suggestion.
Or “Republicans, help me understand the thinking (why extreme candidates)” to keep it close to the original.
I didn’t say it was a great title - it was a little vague, but certainly no worse than a lot of thread titles. And contrary to WhiteSIFL’s assertion, the edit by Jonathan Chance did not suggest “personal bias” to me, just that he either incorrectly read the OP or incorrectly prepared an edit.
My comment was just a statement of dismay that there are at least two, possibly more, ordinary posters who would actually bother to make a post report because the original title bothered them so much. After all, in the time it takes to make a report, one could just as easily look at the OP and get more details.
Maybe they’re also trying to help those folks out who are going to come into the forum later, not just themselves.
Perhaps. But all I can say is that the mods must be getting an insanely high level of post reports if every imperfect thread title on the board is being reported.
Well, that’s why they make the big bucks!
Seven on just one post overnight!
And this thread is closed. Y’all are just being silly.