Here's an answer based on the discussion in the comments.
Vague titles can and should be edited
Vague titles are indeed a problem, and they are exactly the kinds of things that make appropriate edits. I don't think there's much need to ask posters to change their titles, since the people who post the vaguest titles are often those who have the least engagement with the site. Some examples of overly vague titles:
- How do I make this diagram?
- I want to draw this
- Problem with TikZ diagram
How specific is too specific?
We should be careful, however, in not making revisions to titles so specific as to make them only understandable to a very small base of users if the problem is more general. This might be quite tricky to implement in reality. Here are some guidelines that might be helpful to distinguish the cases.
- If the question is about drawing a diagram of something, then reference to the actual content of the diagram is likely to be less useful to other users than reference to particular types of TikZ elements that make up the diagram.
A concrete example of this would be the question linked in this question: a description such as "Heat conduction through a material" is not really very helpful to others, since this describes the scientific content of the image, but not anything about the image itself. In that case the suggested "3D boxes with transparent gradients" is better ('3D gradients' is itself somewhat technical, but so are all our
Technical terms are not always inappropriate
- If the question is about a particular kind of structure that is used in a particular field, then a technical term may be appropriate, but a TikZ description might also be helpful. This case is harder to judge, and my opinion falls a bit more on the side of the technical term, but others may disagree.
For example, a question like:
would not be helped with a title that made it more accessible to non-linguists. The reasons for this are two-fold: the representations are specific to a field, and as a result there are specific packages that can be used for them, and even when no specific packages exist, using the technical term in the question will attract answers from people (in this case like me) who have the requisite technical knowledge of the field to propose solutions that are usable.
Similar cases would be things like commutative diagrams, Feynman diagrams, automata, Karnaugh maps, Young tableaux, Optimality Theory tableaux etc., all of which could in principle be described in less technical terms but to the detriment of the question.
Making such question titles more general is IMO a mistake, since it invites ill-conceived answers from people who don't know the field, and may also cause people with the requisite knowledge who might also know of specific packages, to ignore them. Personally I don't tend to look for TikZ questions to answer, but I will look at any linguistics or tree questions in particular. I'm sure others in other fields have similar tactics.