[lutusp]

Title of this submission: "'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car"

Title of the actual article: "'Walkie-Talkie' skyscraper melts Jaguar car parts"

This is like saying, "Prime minister discusses end of world rumor" and leaving off "rumor".

[joosters]

The original seems fair enough to me. Are you insisting that the entire car is melted into a puddle before the title can leave the 'parts' bit out?

[lutusp]

That depends. What does the title say, if it's intended to convey facts?

[UVB-76]

It's correct to use that terminology even when an object is only partially melted, as in this case.

[lutusp]

No, it is not correct. It exaggerates the facts. A journalist at a conscientious periodical wouldn't get away with it.

[okwa]

By adding "parts" to the submission title, at least we're still talking about a subset of the car.

Can't say the same for "rumor."

[lutusp]

That depends on whether the rumor is a subset of the truth. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Truth: Joe Smith has never beaten his wife.

Rumor: Joe Smith no longer beats his wife.

There's some truth in the rumor, but no rumor in the truth.