Can we get a title change here. This title is not only wrong but just worded to grab attention.
Their original website was taken offline by a (now former) developer, forcing them to change domains. Seems like the title is perfectly accurate.
Imagine the headline "LA Lakers Closes!" That tells me the basketball team is no more. But, if instead their website was closed for a planned relaunch, then the headline should read "LA Lakers' Website Closes!" or "LALakers.com Closes!"
Anyway, the current headline is now more misleading, since it omits what makes the story interesting, and they aim to get the original domain back in any case. (This is the case even though the blog post has that same title.)
But I totally get the judgement of the previous editor as well. When in doubt, and given a poor headline (nah, it didn't say .com), go with the headline of the article that is linked. It's a good rule of thumb, and this was the exception.
Thanks for rolling with the punches, whoever is pulling strings.