Talk:California senator opposed to cell-phones involved in cell-phone related crash

Article name

What does the title even mean now? 129.42.161.36 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, "Come a cropper" means;

come a cropper, Informal.

a. to fail; be struck by some misfortune: His big deal came a cropper.

b. to fall headlong, esp. from a horse.

It doesn't seem to fit the article if I look at the content of the article, seeing as how no-one's falling or failing anything. On the contrary, her accident was actually ironic. Dragei 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please give this a title that means something? Alliteration isnt everything in news, you know. A local, informal poll revealed that no one has ever heard of "Come a Cropper".

How about a name like "Cell phone senator crashes while using phone"? I'll make the change in a day or two if no one objects. ("Anti-cell-phone-driving senator crashes while using phone" is more specific but longer: I figured that made it a less desirable title, correct?) —BlackTerror 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What's a "cell phone senator"? I have no problem with a long title, this is the internet, I think most computers can handle a few more bytes. And "comes a cropper"? Is that supposed to be a widely known phrase? Because it isn't. Cacophony 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Either Brian McNeil is showing his age or it seems to be a regional expression. I had to look it up, too. --SVTCobra 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way...it got everyone reading the article right? ;) DragonFire1024 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. It needed a location anyway. And "comeuppance" is slightly more appropriate than "comes a cropper". --SVTCobra 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Noun 1. comeuppance - an outcome (good or bad) that is well deserved - thefreedictionary.com --SVTCobra 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer what everyone is screaming their heads off about being a dated expression (of which I recognised and am 19), instead of the extremely POV one we have now. --84.67.250.92 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't recognize the old expression (and I'm 24), but I do agree that the current one is too POV. Why not something like "Anti-cell phone senator in cell phone related crash"? Tzepish 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concede that the implied "she got was she deserved" is POV. However, I don't think this is even news-worthy if not for the humor factor. But this is "the news source you can write" so feel free to change to "Anti-cell phone senator in cell phone related crash" or something else. --SVTCobra 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "California senator opposed to cell-phones involved in cell-phone related crash". "Anti cell-phone senator in cell phone related crash" makes it sound like she hates cell-phones, which from what I read she is only opposed to the use of them while driving. —FellowWikiNewsie 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Cell phones" should not not hyphenated (since, unlike earlier, it's no longer in an adjectival phrase). B0at 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't understand what was wrong with my title. You either knew what it meant or went huh?, read the first sentence, and all was clear. At the moment I'm tempted to say it should be "Poetic justice for cell-phone senator". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, if you didn't know what it was to "come a cropper", your knowledge of the English language has now been enriched. I may be showing my age, demonstrating that I have qualifications from the British Horse Society, or just plain well-read. Can I please now go back to watching the black helicopters outside? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Title II

The title needs a comma, as in "California senator opposed to cell phones, involved in cell phone related crash" as right now, it reads that she's opposed to the cell phones involved in a cell-phone related crash. That is, I don't get the impression that she was the subject of 'involved', but rather, 'cell-phones' seems like the subject. A comma would disambiguate. Cheers. -Etafly 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the correct place for the comma. If it had to be added, it would require two: "California senator, opposed to cell phones, involved in cell-phone related crash" --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. Headline convention usually ignores formal grammatical correctness in favour of brevity. I'm not saying that the headline should read like a sentence, I'm saying that a well-placed comma would disambiguate the headline. Note that in headlines, commas can be used to replace the word 'and', and through the omission of "to be", as well as the elimination of articles, the restored headline would read something like:

  "[A] California senator [is] opposed to cell phones [and] [is] involved in [a] cell phone related crash."

  Thus, I maintain that the headline, should it retain its wording, must read: "California senator opposed to cell phones, involved in cell phone related crash." -Etafly 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that would change the meaning. Such punctuation implies that the senator becoming opposed to cell phones is new, like the crash, when in fact her vote occurred last year. The phrase "opposed to cell phones" is a participle phrase identifying which lawmaker is the senator in question, not indicating a change in the state of her cell phone policy. Currently, the sentence would be expanded to:

"[The] California senator [who is] opposed to cellphones [is] involved in [a] cell phone related crash."

Participle phrases are not proceeded by a comma. —BlackTerror 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your expansion, but I believe it is ambiguous in that it can also be reconstructed as:

"[The] California senator [is] opposed to cellphones involved in [a] cell phone related crash."

I fully realize that this meaning is highly unlikely (Why would she be specifically opposed to two or more cellphones involved in a crash?)-- however, structurally, it's equally viable. The comma in this case would serve the purpose of the word [and], rather than operating within the framework of formal syntax. I must digress, however, as I've asked my girlfriend for a second opinion, and she made it clear that you'd have to be mentally challenged in order to seriously consider this headline ambiguous. Ouch! -Etafly 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)