I always feel it isn't quite right to say that Newtonian physics is wrong.

Yes it's true that it is a case within the more general theory; but, in a way, you can always say this is likely true of even the new wider case theory. You will never be able to say you are sure there aren't exceptions, new cases, wider more general laws, than the ones we arrive at through scientific method. It is a baseline assumption of science that such is the case at all times.

And did Newtonian physics ever claim to be universally functional in all conditions and places? It was derived for use terrestrially. It continues to work for that. The evidences found still hold true. Only a fool would have claimed they knew it would work outside of the known realm of it's usage and verification. No theory is absolute. The universe has no objective truth to it, only one that has relative mechanisms and one that describes things in a way that is useful within certain conditions.

Do we likewise refute that solid objects don't exist? In broader theory, solid is an illusion. It is only electromagnetism that prevents your hand from moving straight through a tabletop. Not "physical contact." And yet we can also accept that this is just what is meant by physical contact. It is a construct of desciption developed and still used because it is the functional way for us to view it.

I'm a mechanical engineer by trade. What I can tell you is that no one stopped using Newtonian physics. Nobody uses anything else to design things today. It's still fully correct. In fact, using relativity and/or quantum mechanics would be a worse solution. It would be bulky, less intuitive, therefore stifling ease of innovation or fluidity of discretionary usages, and lead to higher frequency of errors, reducing the quality of the final product.

So does Occams not work? Rather it did. It was right. It is irrelevant that you can dig deeper and produce a more general solution. The correct solution today is to still use Newtonian physics for everything terrestrial. A careful follower of science would have never claimed it was any good for anything beyond those boundaries. The truly wonderful thing about science is it literally cannot be wrong. Only a person's interpretation can be wrong. Science never claims to know what it doesn't know. People do. Science never said there wasn't going to be more to it, or that Newtonian physics would work elsewhere. It can't have done as no evidence or experiments showed such. Once we tried, we found the evidence, which is why we then produced new theories.

The article directly backs what I say. Perhaps there is confusion here though. The astronomy example in the article is the opposite of the newtonian example. In that one, while the old model can still produce results, it is clunky. The new model simplifies and provides for cleaner usage. The reverse is true for Newtonian physics. It isn't old stubbornness; we will never stop using newtonian physics as we do because it remains superior. It always will be. It is the true way to go about it.

Again the article backs this. At the end of the day, just like we arrived at what we say and call fact that the planets orbit the sun, we will always say and call fact the obvious functional description of newtonian physics. Just like we will continue to talk about solid objects, even though they don't actually exist.

Correct. I didn't say Occam's razor is the sole definer: the other side of the equation is if your model has been falsified.

But given two competing unfalsified theories, what we call "true" is given by simplicity considerations. This falls out naturally from Karl Poppers framework in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and I draw out that logical argument here. This is something Popper puts forward indirectly himself.