Talk:September 11 attacks/Title & comma archive

Missing comma
I'm going to move this article to put in the comma missing after "2001" in the title. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But there is no missing comma 'September 11, 2001, attacks' just looks naff and silly. There's also no grammatical rule that allows for a comma there (September 11 2001 is essentially an adjective here - you don't put commas between adjectives and their nouns!). Personally I'd prefer no comma in the title. Jongarrettuk 13:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nor did the person making the spurious move bother fixing the literally hundreds of links in other articles to what suddenly became a redirect. I've moved it back. - David Gerard 14:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized a comma would be controversial. I checked in three books and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).


 * Perhaps the two of you are used to writing dates in the format "11 September 2001," which would call for no commas at all. Maurreen 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The current style (as if the comma isn't part of the sentence) seems to be the one most used here. The main problem with a change like this is that it's a really popular and heavily-linked page - click on 'What links here' and see. Probably the best thing to do for moves of a popular page is to take a straw poll on the subject. Then convention is that whoever advocates the move gets to go to every linked article and fix the link so it isn't a redirect ;-) (I had to do this when I moved UFO to Unidentified flying object ... and serve me right) - David Gerard 16:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ask first. If a lot of people scream bloody murder, then don't. Furthermore, I should point out that while the article has no comma, the talk page does. Schism! --Golbez 17:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Fixed - David Gerard 17:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just searched on google under 'September 11, 2001 attacks' - this version wins out easily. Jongarrettuk 20:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The comma is correct. Either "11 September 2001 attacks" or "September 11, 2001, attacks". The year is technically an appositive in the second form and, therefore, requires two commas.


 * It is a pity that carelessness or ignorance has left hundreds of incorrectly written links throughout Wikipedia. Something this important and widespread should be handled correctly as a matter of public education. Besides, I thought that a robot propagated the changes to links. No?


 * I urge that correct usage be instituted. Shorne 06:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See also discussion on the Village Pump. This is not a universal accepted rule, although we have not established its range. Note especially U.S. Senate Resolution 173: Title: A resolution condemning violence and discrimination against Iranian-Americans in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Rmhermen 13:14, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't consider US senators very good arbiters of English usage.


 * I agree that "Attacks of September 11, 2001" is better. Note, however, that a comma is still required after the year in "The attacks of September 11, 2001, were &hellip;".


 * There are good reasons to insist on the second comma. Consider "On September 11, 2001 attacks were waged against the US." That means that two thousand one attacks were waged on September 11 of an unstated year. Shorne 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That example is completely different, "On September 11, 2001" modifies "were" not "attacks". Rmhermen 19:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comma references, compromise title
The link on the Village Pump discussion goes to the style guide of a German wire service. Germany's a great places, but it's not the best authority on English usage. Nor is the number of Google hits, as someone mentioned in a discussion elsewhere. I have at least three references that say a comma should be used in a construction such as "September 11, 2001, attacks." Does anyone have anything authoritative to counter that?

If the majority of you want to leave the comma out, so be it. But the title will be substandard. Or does anyone want to compromise? Maybe we can find a title none of us disagree with. Maurreen 01:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You have no references that say that there should be a comma when September 11, 2001 is used as an adjective (Shorne is wrong to imply that 'September 11, 2001' could be in apposition to 'attacks' - it is clearly adjectival (see also appositive.) And I'm not sure what you regard as 'authoritative' - if you don't accept google as being a guide to common usage, what do you accept? There is already a redirect on 'September 11, 2001, attacks'. If we go for a 'September 11 2001 attacks' style formulation, the consensus is clearly for just one comma.


 * That said, in my opinion We should just call the page '9/11' on the grounds that that is what it is most commonly referred to as. Jongarrettuk 06:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said that September 11, 2001 was in apposition to attacks. It is 2001 that is in apposition to September 11. And that is why 2001 requires two commas.


 * Maurreen is quite right. Google is no style guide. Shorne 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Common usage is not synonymous with correct usage. Here are a few references. I can probably find more without much trouble.
 * 1) From The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual: "When a phrase refers to a month, day and year, set off the year with commas."
 * 2) From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: "When day, month and year are given together, use a comma after the day, and use a comma or some other punctuation after the year."
 * 3) From Working With Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors: "Use a comma before and after the abbreviation for a state following a city, and before and after a year following a month and date."
 * 4) From Webster's New World College Dictionary: "A comma is ordinarily used ... to set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given."
 * None of these references give exceptions.
 * I am OK with calling the page "9/11." Maurreen 15:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The two commas are of course correct. But if people can't agree to that, we could just drop the year and use September 11 attacks. Gzornenplatz 15:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not content with "9/11", which reflects a US bias. That date would be written "11/9" in many other countries. It is commonly used only because it happens to coincide with 911, the telephone number for emergency services in the US (and Canada and a few other countries).


 * I recommend "Attacks of September 11, 2001". It's clearer anyway. Shorne 17:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen says 'common usage is not synonymous with correct usage'. Ummm, yes it is. English is a living language, it changes, it does not obey strict rules. If most people phrase something a particular way, it is, necessarily, accepted usage. And accepted usage changes.

Manuals of style, or at least the good ones, seek to report how people actually use language. Just like an encyclopaedia does not determine what something means, nor does a manual of style prescribe - it reports. If the language people use changes so that it is different from a manual of style, the manual is out of date. This may, or may not, mean that the old usage is considered 'wrong', it can never mean the new usage is 'wrong'. In particular, it means that a manual of style can never be a determinant of 'correct' language, it can only report what the authors (one hopes after research) have found, at that time, to be common usage.

So where are we? If two commas is used frequently by the writers above, and by many others - this is strong evidence that it is 'correct' US English. Similarly if one comma is used frequently by others - it may also be 'correct'. Google is, of course, no determinant, but it is indicative of common usage, particularly of US English. It shows one comma as being clearly the more common usage, this is strong evidence that the one comma variant is standard (ie 'correct') US English too. There are, of course, also many articles with two commas - which reinforces the argument that the two comma variant is a commonly accepted usage. Conclusion; on the evidence available, both the one and two comma variants are used in standard US English, and in this sense both may be considered 'correct'.

As far as what the article should be called. I'd still suggest 9/11 as it is the most common way this is referred to in the English speaking world - it's certainly referred to 9/11 in UK English. If the 'September 11 2001 attacks' formula is kept, there are good reasons for just having the one comma version. (1) The one comma version appears to be the most common version; (2) The two comma version is jarring to a non-American - it just looks wrong (even if it is an acceptable variant in US English). This is an International encyclopaedia, so point (2) is a strong argument. The one comma version should prevail. Jongarrettuk 19:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Written usage is conservative. Of course it changes over time. But good usage is still that of the people whose standards are the most widely appreciated as being well-informed and proper. It matters not that many people write accomodate and accordian; those are incorrect spellings and will continue to be so regarded for a long time to come.
 * As for "September 11, 2001, attacks", you'll find few people who flatly assert that using two commas is wrong, but you will find many people&mdash;people who know what they are doing&mdash;who say that using only one comma (or, worse yet, none) is wrong and who can explain their claim.


 * I don't consider Google to be a representative body of good writing. The fact that the four style guides cited by Maurreen, along with my own practice (which, of course, is perfect in every way :-)), agree that two commas are needed is strong evidence that that is the most accepted style for edited text. (Most of what appears on Google is not edited.) Shorne 19:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my thinking: "September 11, 2001 attacks" is the name of the attacks. Names don't have to be grammatically correct. Note that a Hello world program ought to be a "Hello, world" program, but no one uses this (correct) construction, so the name should be "Hello world", even though the name uses incorrect grammar. (In a more base example, the Perineum is called a 'tain't, but there is no redirect for 'tisn't.) I think a proper article should say "The 'September 11, 2001 attacks' were carried out on September 11, 2001, by al-Qaida." See the difference? – Quadell (talk) (help)  11:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Working toward a compromise: Does anyone object to either of these?
 * 1) September 11 attacks
 * 2) Attacks of September 11, 2001
 * Maurreen 02:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The second makes natural linking to hard. Many links would have to be piped links. The first sounds good but maybe "September 11th attacks"? Rmhermen 03:30, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the second. The first is risky: what will we do if some attacks occur on a future September 11? Shorne 03:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summarizing title options

 * September 11, 2001 attacks
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) Simplicity, maintains status quo.
 * 2) Appears to be much more common than the two-comma version (Source: search on google).
 * 3) One opinion is that no second comma is needed because the entire date is an adjective for "attacks."
 * 4) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a German wire service, supports the one-comma style for dates.
 * 5) The Handbook of Technical Writing, 4th ed., Brusaw, Alred, and Oliu, indicates that dates can be written with or without a comma following the year.
 * 6) One opinion is that names are not required to be grammatically correct.


 * Rationale against:


 * 1) One opinion is that "common usage" is not synonymous with "correct usage." Common usage is often casual usage. It is not the standard for an encyclopedia. Even contractions (such as "can't") are correct, but discouraged by the Wikipedia style guide.
 * 2) Using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books. These include the style guides of The Associated Press and The New York Times and Webster's New World College Dictionary. The only known exceptions are cases in which another punctuation mark follows the year and those in which the month is placed between the day and the year. For more guideance, see this Google search.
 * 3) One opinion is that the second comma is needed because the year is in apposition to the date (September 11). The second comma serves to set the year off from the rest of the date. It avoids the appearance that "2001" is either a modifier or subject for "attacks."
 * 4) One opinion is that an encyclopedia should strive to be beyond reproach. Even a perceived error can lead to less credibility. We can avoid that by choosing a title in which the comma question does not arise.
 * 5) The complaint that the second comma is unfamiliar to readers outside the United States, and that it is purely a U.S. construction, is out of place in that the format of the order of the date is a U.S. construction.
 * 6) Google Test says: &#8220;Further common sense: The Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives ten times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor (see Google test for "Charles-Windsor" and "Charles-Mountbatten-Windsor".&#8221;
 * 7) Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: &#8220;In article titles dates will not be converted. It's generally preferable to use the format used by local English speakers at the location of the event.&#8221;
 * 8) Manual of Style says: &#8220;Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country.&#8221; Logic would extend that idea to punctuation. Also: If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect.


 * September 11, 2001, attacks
 * Rationale for:

See rationale against the one-comma version.
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) Purely a US English construction. One opinion is that non-US readers will be unfamiliar with it.Jongarrettuk finds the second comma jarring (certainly to non-Americans).
 * The "US English construction" is the date format "M D, Y". Most English-speaking countries prefer "D M Y", a logical form that is increasingly common in the US as well (it has long been used in the military) and that avoids the clutter of commas altogether. If you want "M D, Y", you do need a second comma. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * which makes it very jarring to someone used to non-US English and no commas;) Jongarrettuk 21:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And there is not a consensus that the comma is required either. older &ne; wiser 15:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Appears to be a less common formulation than the one-comma version (Source: search on google).
 * It may be required by some U.S. grammarians but is probably not commonly used even there. Rmhermen 21:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11, 2001.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?


 * 9/11
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) Short.
 * 2) Widely used in the United States, where the attacks happened.
 * 3) Widely used in the United Kingdom (despite DD/MM formula being used for dates generally). [If anyone knows about the rest of the English-speaking world, plase add.]
 * It is widely used because other countries followed the US's lead. There is no other explanation for the use of "9/11" in a country that would write the date "11/9" (even Canada does so) and that has another telephone number for emergency services. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Most common phrasing for the events by a long long long way (Source: search on google)
 * 2) One opinion is that encyclopedias are meant to report what people call things. And wikipedia already has articles for 1, 2, 3, etc.
 * 3) Any ambiguity would depend on which country you are in -- there is no ambiguity for British readers, for instance.
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) Ambiguous in various ways. I mean not just whether it means Sept. 11 or Nov. 9, but "911" phone number for emergency calls in the U.S. or $9.11, etc.
 * 2) Formal writing seldom uses numerals in place of the names of months.
 * Agreed. It is inappropriate as a title. I don't mind its use within articles, provided that the context is clear. Another reason to avoid it is that it may lose much of its punchiness as time passes. Will people twenty or thirty years hence know what "9/11" means? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Too ambiguous.


 * September 11 attacks
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.
 * 2) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11.  Grammatically implies that September 11 did the attacking.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.


 * September 11th attacks
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.
 * 2) Same as problems with September 11 attacks, sounds like a bad horror movie title (Mars Attacks!).
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.


 * Attacks of September 11, 2001
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) Avoids adjective pile-up
 * 2) Precise and unambiguous construction of English, grammatically correct
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) Could make natural linking too hard. Many links would have to be piped links.
 * What's wrong with simply redirecting a great variety of other forms to the new page? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Not a common formulation (only 82,000 hits on google - which is low compared with the other options here)
 * It's better in a title than in running text. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a news website or some such agency. Such other sources go with what is "snappy" or makes a catching news headline. Google results are not therefore, representative in this case. zoney &#09827; talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Inconsistent with other articles (11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Casablanca Attacks, May 8 Bus Attack in Karachi, 2002 Karachi consulate attack, Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks almost every bombing, hostage crisis and siege on List of terrorist incidents)
 * I would suggest these others have randomly chosen, and in some cases, unencyclopaedic titles. zoney &#09827; talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11, 2001.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?


 * September 11, 2001
 * Rationale for:


 * 1) The attacks are widely known by the date. Culturally, the date symbolizes the event, as the place indicates the event for "Pearl Harbor" and "the Alamo."
 * 2) A Wikipedia search for "September 11, 2001" leads readers to this article.
 * 3) September 11, 2001 already redirects here, and there is no information on events taking place on that day in Wikipedia which are not related to the event.
 * 4) Including a brief section of other things which happened that day wouldn't hurt the article, and would likely improve it by putting things into perspective.
 * Rationale against:


 * 1) The title doesn't help anyone unfamiliar with the attacks, because it does not include that information.
 * 2) *Why is this a job of a title?
 * 3) Sounds like it should be a page covering all current events on September 11, 2001, not just the attacks.
 * 4) *And Attacks of September 11, 2001 sounds like it should be a page covering all attacks on September 11, 2001, not just the one(s) on those airplanes/buildings/people/etc.
 * 5) This represents a pro-US bias.
 * 6) *This needs to be clarified.

Please feel free to add anything needed above. Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Just a note to say I have felt free to add to the above and have, indeed, done so. Jongarrettuk 06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) as has Shorne

Libraries
FYI, the officially authorized Library of Congress subject heading--which controls what to look under in your library's catalog--is "September 11 Terrorist Attacks, 2001". PedanticallySpeaking 20:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this - what has the Library of Congress got to do with my library's catalogue? jguk 06:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It probably has nothing to do with jguk's library. The Library of Congress subject headings pertain to many U.S. libraries. But the Dewey Decimal System is also very common in the USA. Maurreen I forgot to sign this earlier.

Please accept my apologies for forgetting about the rest of the English-speaking world; the Library of Congress's decisions in general control how America's libraries catalog books. Please also understand that I am talking about subject headings and not call numbers--i.e. the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress classification are not at issue. Now, the overwhelming majority of libraries in America do not catalog books themselves but rely on the Cataloging in Publication data supplied by the Library of Congress appearing on the title page verso of books. Second, librarians use what is called a "controlled vocabulary". This entire debate we're having on what to call the September 11th article is a good example. There's several different places we could put this article, just as there's several different phrases to describe "nuclear power" (e.g. "atomic power," "nuclear energy," "nuclear fission", etc.) What the Library of Congress does is create an "authorized" subject heading so that no matter what library you go into, all the books on "nuclear power" will be under that heading; it puts libraries on the same page. Most libraries in America use them exclusively and any library of any size will have the big set of red books containing all the subject headings authorized, fully cross-referenced with alternatives. There are a few libraries that put in additional subject headings beyond what's in the CIP data or create their own subject headings--e.g., the Hennepin County, Minnesota, public library was famous for its cataloging work under the iconoclastic Sanford Berman--but once the Library of Congress has spoken, generally that's what America's libraries use. Now, I know the Canadian Library and the British Library, which do the CIP work in their countries, uses different headings, so sometimes you'll find a book with CIP data from more than one and they never agree. Would be curious to know what the approved British and Canadian subject headings are for this topic. Finally, the entire LC authorities file is available on the web at http://authorities.loc.gov/. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Title poll?
Shall we narrow things down and mark which options we support or oppose?


 * Please update vote counts when voting. zoney &#09827; talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I realized I neglected to set a duration for the poll. I think we can let it run a week from when it opened, Oct. 6 through Oct. 13. Maurreen 09:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks (8-5)

 * Support


 * 1) Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) older &ne; wiser 14:03, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) NeoJustin 02:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney &#09827; talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oh no, September 11 is attacking! anthony (see warning) 18:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001, attacks (3-10)

 * Support


 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) zoney &#09827; talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) older &ne; wiser 14:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) comma overload! Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) there is too many commas in that title. NeoJustin 02:52 Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Clunky feel. J OHN C OLLISON  [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

9/11 (2-11)

 * Support


 * 1) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Probably the most common name used for the attacks, and not unencyclopedic, so I have no problem with it. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney &#09827; talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Too informal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) older &ne; wiser 14:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Not appropriate interntionaly --NeilTarrant 15:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) NeoJustin 02:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Okay to use in text when quoting or paraphrasing people who refer to 9/11, but not for the article title. --Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

September 11 attacks (6-7)

 * Support


 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) (reluctantly&mdash;could become ambiguous)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) older &ne; wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Simple, common, rolls easily off the tongue (well, keyboard) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) zoney &#09827; talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) NeoJustin 02:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

September 11th attacks (4-11)

 * Support


 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) older &ne; wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ("September 11 attacks" would be better; this form seems to offer no real advantage)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney &#09827; talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) The "th" is not our usual style. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) NeoJustin 02:52, Oct 13, 2004
 * 10) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attacks of September 11, 2001 (10-6)

 * Support


 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) zoney &#09827; talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quite simply, the most encyclopaedic form here.
 * 4) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:38, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) older &ne; wiser 14:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 08:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) NeilTarrant 15:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC), I agree with Zoney
 * 10) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 21:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) SimonP 00:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) NeoJustin 03:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I can understand wanting to combine a number of coordinated events which took place on September 11, 2001, but "attacks" isn't the way to do it. "Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" maybe.  Even better, "Terrorist attack of September 11, 2001".  "Airplane hijackings of September 11, 2001" perhaps.  Even Attack on America gets more google hits.  But "Attacks of September 11, 2001"?  I don't get it. anthony (see warning) 18:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title vote tally

 * September 11, 2001 attacks (7-4) (64% support)
 * September 11, 2001, attacks (3-8) (27% support)
 * 9/11 (1-10) (9% support)
 * September 11 attacks (5-7) (42% support)
 * September 11th attacks (4-9) (31% support)
 * Attacks of September 11, 2001 (9-6) (60% support)

Does anyone want a run-off between "September 11, 2001 attacks" and "Attacks of September 11, 2001"? Maurreen 05:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since the previous vote has shown there is no consensus for change and it is clear there is no alternative with unanimous or near unanimous support, I think it's time to draw a veil over this discussion and leave the page where it is. I'm also conscious that people who are quite happy with what the article is called now would have had no need to go to the talk page to even see this vote and that in the vote, the current title is the most supported one. jguk 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The vote was far from clear-cut. I do indeed propose a runoff between "September 11, 2001 attacks" and "Attacks of September 11, 2001". I remain convinced that the former is grossly incorrect grammatically speaking, with the latter much more encyclopaedic. I suggest in the new vote, people simply vote for one option, or the other. zoney &#09827; talk 09:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I prefer not to go into detail, but I don't see how a run-off can hurt. Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a proper noun it should be September 11, 2001 Attacks. so all of these are wrong! Dunc|&#9786; 11:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title run-off vote
Please indicate supporting votes for either option and update the tally in parentheses. This poll will run for a week, from Oct. 15 through Oct. 21. Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see the earlier discussions before voting. Reasoning for having a vote: There is disagreement as to whether the first version below is a correct English construction, while the latter is not a construction often used in the media. zoney &#09827; talk 23:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * September 11, 2001 attacks (18)
 * 1) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 17:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) gadfium 18:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) jguk 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Mild preference for status quo and having the most memorable aspect (the date) come first. But the alternative is also palatable. --Michael Snow 21:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) older &ne; wiser 23:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Adam Bishop 04:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) SimonP 06:52, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) RickK 08:18, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) dpen2000 16:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) L33tminion 01:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) jengod 03:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) mav 20:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Chris 73 Talk 23:24, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Sean Curtin 19:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Stormie 11:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) - no reason to prefer one of the other, so I vote for the status quo


 * Attacks of September 11, 2001 (14)
 * 1) Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) zoney &#09827; talk 16:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Golbez 19:04, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) NeilTarrant 19:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Gzornenplatz 08:42, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) J OHN C OLLISON  [ Ludraman] 22:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 06:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Mpolo 12:41, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) (The current title confuses me with no comma after 2001, but I agree that with the comma it's overloaded. This solves that problem.)
 * 10) Vsmith 11:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) The date didn't attack - terrorists did.
 * 11) Triskaideka Clearest. If a redirect is left at the old title, then nothing is lost.   &mdash;Triskaideka 16:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) ALoan (Talk) 13:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Sharkford 18:28, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * 14) --Locarno 19:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose both titles (5)
 * 1) anthony (see warning) 16:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *I've looked over the page and can't find your preferred title. Do you have one? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **September 11, 2001 anthony (see warning) 18:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) September 11 terrorist attacks. Very Verily  23:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Very Verily--198 01:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Also agree with Very Verily violet/riga (t) 09:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) September 11 freedom-fighter attacks - Sarcasm 23:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Whichever title is chose, the others suggested should become redirects. --L33tminion 01:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like there wasn't consensus (although the former version received a small plurality). I'm not sure what to do from here. – Quadell (talk) (help)  21:22, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ensure a summary of all these votes is put at the top of the talk page, in order that the issue is not accidentally stirred up within a month or two. (i.e. rerun). Of course I'm sure the issue will arise again, but at least people should remain aware how things panned out this time around. zoney &#09827; talk 22:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)