A MO user (Myshkin) has just edited the title of a question of mine (here) to make it shorter. The old title was:
Ref request: If the natural density (relative to the primes) exists, then the Dirichlet density also exists, and the two are equal
whereas the new title is:
If the natural density exists, then the Dirichlet density also exists, and the two are equal
I must confess that I find this annoying:
1) There is an upper bound to the length of a title, which is imposed by the software. So, it seems to me that any other consideration about the length of a title is arbitrary and shouldn't be used as a justification for editing a post insofar as a title provides sensible information that would be lost by making it shorter.
2) The new title by Myshkin is certainly shorter than the old one. Yet, it's also less precise and more confusing, and I'm not convinced that shortness is more valuable than clarity. In my limited experience, algebraic number theorists assume the terms "natural density" and "Dirichlet density" refer, by default, to the quantities that I'm considering in my question, and that's probably why Myshkin has thought the old title contained some redundancy. However, that's not the case with analytic or combinatorial number theory, which is the origin of much confusion and the explanation for the parenthesis "(relative to the primes)" I had put in the old title.
So I'm writing here to ask if there is a policy on MO to deal with this kind of "issues". To be more explicit, I think I'd like to roll back to the old title, or better to the following shorter version of the old title:
If the natural density (relative to the primes) exists, then the Dirichlet density also exists, and the two are equal
But it seems unfair to me to do it without asking for the advice of the community.