Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 64
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 |
Requested move 26 January 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
September 11 attacks → 9/11 – As the article states, the attacks are commonly known as “9/11”, most people refer to it as “9/11”, other articles about it on Wikipedia itself have “9/11” in the title such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 truth movement, and the United States Government’s commission into the attacks and that commission’s report on the attacks refer to it as “9/11”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are they really commonly known as “9/11”, everywhere, by everyone? I don't refer to it as “9/11”, but you see, I'm not American. I doubt if anyone else I know refers to it as “9/11”. There is a major problem with that name for this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. To me, and to almost everyone outside the USA, 9/11 means the 9th of November. I believe we need to keep the more explicit, globally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11".
- Your personal experience is not a WP:RS for making changes to Wikipedia articles. Again, the problem is that moving this article to "9/11" introduces too much ambiguity and makes it more difficult for users to find this article, we would have to disambiguate the article. Such a move does not
enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article
. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- As HiLo points out, moving it to 9/11 would just mean confusing it with the actual date scheme. This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME falls afoul of making things more confusing and harder to find the correct article. So I have to say Oppose to this proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per HandThatFeeds. I'm also not convinced it is the common name outside of being a colloquialism. — Czello (music) 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Britannica. I agree we can use the shorter form for some of the subtopics see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Requested move 31 January 2022 but I think the main article should use the full term even though its primary for the number term with the slash. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — Colloquialism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — Colloquialism. And early WP:SNOW close In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — far too colloquial and I really can't think of any other attacks that happened on that date that the September 11 attacks could be reasonably mistaken for. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too informal. trainrobber >be me 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:ElijahPepe, User:In ictu oculi, User:Hmm1994 and User:Trainrobber66. JIP | Talk 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sidebar article expansion
Thoughts on expanding this sidebar to related articles? trainrobber >be me 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)