Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 2



Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Bangladesh

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Bangladesh to Category:United States ambassadors to Bangladesh
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move to common form. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency. Occuli (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * rename to match sister categories Hmains (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename- Per nom Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename for consistency. -- Beloved Freak  09:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ambassadors of the United States to the Soviet Union

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. and I reject the insinuation that I'm not prefect Kbdank71 13:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the United States to the Soviet Union to Category:United States ambassadors to the Soviet Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match form in Category:Ambassadors of the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency. It is in particular Category:Ambassadors to the Soviet Union and Category:Ambassadors to Russia which are not following the usual format. Occuli (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So do we need to start a mass cleanup in the area? There are categories like Category:British ambassadors to Chile which probably needs renaming to Category:United Kingdom ambassadors to Chile.  Anyone with AWB want to take on the task of listing all of these? Before we start, we should decide if we are going to use 'Foo ambassadors' or 'Fooian ambassadors'. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were some similar discussions on July 7 08 and some a few days earlier which seemed to favour 'Fooian'. The term 'United Kingdom ambassador' is not common; it is nearly always British (as in 'Her Brittanic Majesty'). I would also say 'American embassy'. (www.usembassy.org.uk uses at least 3 options for its embassy on the first page.) Occuli (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have an issue either way. Ignoring this and the one above, do you think we need a mass nomination to fooian and are you willing to do it? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If mass nominations could be done more easily (eg by some top level consensus, reflected speedily downwards), I might well support the format 'Category:Ambassadors of Foo to Boo' throughout. As it is I support the current Fooian ambassador to Boo and can live quite happily with minor exceptions such as 'United States ambassador to Boo'. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just made a proposal here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * rename to match sister categories Hmains (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Support Oppose see below   I think the form  is attractive, since it allows expansion from base categories in both directions (ie, subcats of  by adding the related country to the end; and,  by describing the ambassadors at the beginning.  In other words, I'd like to see  renamed too. Neier (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But renaming would spoil the (almost) perfect consistency of Category:Ambassadors by country of origin (bar the UK ... actually other countries than the UK have High Commissioners). Occuli (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it looks like and  are mostly aligned in a form of Ambassadors of countryX to countryZ already.  So, I'm withdrawing support for the rename, and suggest that the rest of the US subcats be named to match (in a separate CFD, of course). Neier (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that these are odd balls in the category tree what harm is done by letting this rename proceed? Yes there is a larger problem since there are several schemes in use.  If you want to bring up the overall problem in a new proposal feel free to do so.  But I suspect that Category:Fooian ambassadors to Foo2 could have the most support since it is already in use and it is short and to the point. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How many flipflops am I allowed? :-)  You're correct, that my reason for opposition has more to do with the surrounding cats than these in particular.  And, naming these all consistently until an honest-to-goodness CFD for the whole tree comes around is not harmful; so I'll strike my !vote again. Neier (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You can continue to flip flop until the rest of us demonstrate that we are perfect.  :-)  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dixie Chicks

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * dixie chicks


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Dixie Chicks already serves a a sufficient navigational hub, there's no need for a category as well. Eponymous categories like this are generally frowned upon per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is no mention anywhere (except in cfds) of articles as navigational hubs. It has 4 subcats and in all contains 54 articles related to the D Chicks - some navigational hub to accomplish all this. Moreover there are linked subarticles and eponymous categories are specifically permitted for these. Occuli (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But the subcats are all interconnected anyway. I don't see how this category is useful when all it really does is gather up stuff that's already covered in Category:Dixie Chicks songs, Category:Dixie Chicks albums and Category:Dixie Chicks members. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It gathers together 54 articles, rather than 10 here, 20 there etc. I fail to see why this is not an obvious advantage. Otherwise a DC song and a DC album are adrift, disconnected from each other; and it's a pain to find out if there other DC categories. Occuli (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - With 4 separate sub-cats and 7 additional assorted articles this category easily makes the cut. If this didn't happen to be "eponymous" we wouldn't even be talking about it. Cgingold (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Les Légions Noires

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * les légions noires


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; eponymous band categories are generally disapproved of. Les Légions Noires already serves as a sufficient hub. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (though not entirely per nom) - With only 2 sub-cats, an article and a template, there's just not enough here to warrant a category. However, the article & template should be upmerged, and the two sub-cats will need new parents. Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cgingold. The whole edifice seems a little shaky in this case as the main article is unsourced. Occuli (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Les Légions Noires bootlegs

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: C1 per Happyme22. Non-admin closure.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * les légions noires bootlegs


 * Nominator's rationale: Category is empty, and is improper; bootleg albums should not be listed on WP. A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * C1 Appears to have been empty since 7/28 when the bootlegs in question were deleted. Meets WP:CSD as being empty for at least 4 days. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I have speedy deleted this category in accordance with category criteria number one. Happyme22 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Selenographers

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

selenographers
 * Rename to . I believe the term "Selenographer" is rather too obscure to be useful as a Category name. When I stumbled upon this category I honestly didn't have a clue what it was for. Although I've undoubtedly come across the term at some time or other, it didn't stick. I am quite certain that it means nothing to the typical reader, so I'd like to come up with a more readily understood term. After all, the goal is to have readers find what they're looking for -- or even what they're not looking for!  Cgingold (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not rename There must be hundreds of similar obscure terms that denote highly specialized and not commonly known disciplines. As long as these are in fact the standard name for what they label, we should use them freely. This is an encyclopedia after all, and a user who for some reason stumbles onto this category from an unrelated subject (I don't know how many people are involved in category surfing as a modus of using Wikipedia) can simply click the link to Selenography to find out that it is in fact "the study of the surface and physical features of the Moon". Any user who enters this category page from one of its member articles will surely already have been briefed as to the definition of this word. __meco (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't take issue with using standard names -- even when they're obscure -- in articles, where they are easily linked and explained. But using unduly obscure terms in category names only serves to discourage readers from trying to use the category structure. It concerns me that the typical reader perusing any of the parent cats for this category is utterly unlikely to be familiar with this term, and in all likelihood will pass right over the category without giving it a second thought. And take the case of somebody who is hoping to find a category for people who "study the physical features of the Moon" (or something to that effect). S/he is smart enough to go straight to Category:Moon or perhaps Category:Astronomers, but can't find what s/he's looking for because, of course, s/he has no idea what such people are called. If only they were called lunographers I wouldn't feel so concerned! (since most people do know that "luna" refers to "the Moon") Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. per Meco. Excuse me if I sound brute, but your lack of knowledge in a particular field of science is no excuse to rename the category. Selenography is a well established term in astronomy. This is not Simple Wikipedia. And BTW if we find a person you describe, she will probably try out the subcategories of Category:Astronomers or Category:Moon. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but this is not about me -- it's about the average reader (which I am not). And it's quite apparent that you did not comprehend what I wrote (if you even read it, rather than merely skimming). Cgingold (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the Moon article also reminds us of Selene, the Greek goddess of the Moon (Luna of course being the corresponding Roman one), and the derivation becomes clear. It's standard that a category takes the name of the corresponding article, namely Selenography. I find a term such as 'Defensive lineman' completely obscure, even after reading the article – indeed the opening paragraph is quite splendidly opaque to the outsider – yet I do not dispute Category:Defensive lineman stubs. Occuli (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference, however, is that quite literally everybody knows about the moon, and would expect there to be a category for people who study the moon -- but would have no reason to suspect that such people would be referred to by the utterly obscure name "selenographer". By contrast, those readers who are familiar with football will already know what a "defensive lineman" is -- and more importantly, will have no trouble locating the corresponding category since it's not under a very obscure term of Greek derivation. I hope you can at least see my point, even if you disagree. Cgingold (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Added in blatant disregard of the notice below.) I don't see where the category name is likely to appear out of context - eg if one is looking at David R. Lindberg (another article with maximal incomprehensibility quota, MIQ) it says at once that he is a malacologist, a linked word, and there he is in the category suggested by the name. If the reader is actually wondering 'Is there a name for someone who studies the sun?' (say) I'm not sure how Wikipedia could address this. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose the correct term is selenographer, and it's not a particularly obscure one. Are we azlso going to change things like, , and to ,  and  because they're too obscure? Or should we continue to use the correct names for them? Grutness...wha?  00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you got me with . (Good grief -- you mean to say they're not cancer researchers?!? :) In light of the (mostly) well-argued opposition, I suppose the time has come to gracefully Withdraw the nomination. But I'm still concerned that categories with overly obscure names are a real obstacle to navigation. Is there perhaps some other way to address this issue? My only objective is to better facilitate use of the category system by the average (non-specialist) reader. Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this a hindrance? It is a subcategory of both astronomers and cartographers, so you know it has something to do with space, and something to do with cartographer-researchy things (perhaps we should rename that "mapmaking people" instead :-), and it's a subcategory of moon, so if you know what a cartographer does... 70.51.11.219 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, smarty-pants -- listen up, and you might learn something: The only way a reader would know all of the parent cats is if s/he was already looking at the category in question. The whole point is that few readers are going to "waste their time" clicking on a category whose name means nothing to them in the first place. But hey, it ain't our concern if dummies like that ever find anything, is it?? PS - It's kinda hard to take too seriously a "drive-by comment" from somebody who doesn't even have the cojones to post as a registered user. Oh well... Cgingold (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ministries of Afghanistan

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ministries of Afghanistan to Category:Government ministries of Afghanistan
 * Nominator's rationale: It appears that most of the ministry categories are called government ministries of foo. Россавиа Диалог 12:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom for clarity and consistency. Cgingold (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Building complexes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * building complexes


 * Category:Building complexes in the United States
 * Category:Building complexes in Colorado
 * Nominator's rationale: Yuck. With no lead article, this is probably OCAT by association. I suppose that a rename or some focus could help.  Airports are included yet some only have one building or even no buildings.  Likewise the vast majority of shopping malls are probably single buildings unless you count the parking garage. I guess that anything that has multiple structures is intended to be included in this category.  If that is the case does it exclude anything? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment item 4 of complex says what a building complex is. Do we need an article to tell us what a sentence already tells us? Hmains (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This covers articles like Rockefeller Center and Empire Plaza (admittedly not so categorized as of this edit) rather nicely as groups of buildings generally considered a single entity and not dedicated to another purpose like airports, college campuses or military bases (those should be categorized under this to make the distinction clearer). Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestions on how to word the introduction or rename the category to make this less ambiguous and not inclusive for any site with at least 2 buildings? If we can't fix including every site with 2 or more buildings this is OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * consider 'Planned Developments' as a replacement and see Template:Developments for the subcats that would be encompassed in it. Hmains (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could work. I think that could be a new structure that can be added at anytime if anyone is willing.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete way too vague, and, as it is, hopelessly biased towards contemporary American examples. Where are Vatican City, the Louvre and so on? Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Johnbod. When it's not even remotely clear from the name what is to be included and what is to be excluded, that a bad sign. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added two related sub cats to the nomination that should be treated the same as the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicides by gas

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Suicides by gas to Category:Suicides by natural gas
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Having just removed several entries that were suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning, creating Category:Suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning while I was at it, I find that the name of this category ought to specify natural gas. meco (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom to avoid confusion.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not rename Natural gas is not poisonous (unless contaminated etc). Gas in this context refers to coal gas or town gas, which contained large amounts of Carbon monoxide. So all suicides by gas should be moved to Category:Suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning. Tassedethe (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe Tassedethe is fundamentally right. The problem is that many of the articles are unclear and/or misleading, with at least one (Rembrandt Bugatti) even specifying "natural gas" (I presume that's erroneous and should be corrected in some way). But all too many articles simply say "gas", leaving it for readers to make an inference as to what that means. So the question we're faced with is: can we properly infer that all of these cases must, perforce, have involved carbon monoxide poisoning? (If so, the proper course of action would be to merge Category:Suicides by gas into Category:Suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning.) Or are we, on the other hand, obliged due to the lack of explicit and specific statements, to use the more general term "Suicides by gas"? Cgingold (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment If you turn on a gas oven without lighting it and put your head in the oven so you are only breathing natural gas, don't you die from the gas displacing all oxygen in your lungs. Don't you die of natural gas?  Hmains (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe some wording to cover the basic method which is breathing an oxygen deficient gas?  That covers just about all of these as well as LP, Nitrogen and who knows what else. Category:Suicides by breathing an oxygen deficient gas Category:Suicides by inhaling an asphyxiant anyone? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is proper terminology we should use: Category:Suicides by inhaling an asphyxiant for those where the inhalant isn't inherently toxic, it just kills by inducing anoxia. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I do kind of like Category:Suicides by inhaling an asphyxiant for those cases where the person is known to have died from asphyxia or anoxia, the problem is that in most of the articles we're talking about it just isn't clear what the exact cause of death really was -- and the most likely cause in most of those articles was, in fact, carbon monoxide poisoning, which would NOT be covered by the term asphyxia. Is there, perchance, an even broader, more generic term that we could use? Cgingold (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Suicides by breathing? Just kidding—I'm really stumped on this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 12:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks to Category:9/11 conspiracy theories
 * Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category. These aren't "alternative" theories in the normal sense of "alternative". They are conspiracy theories. Recommend deleting this misnomer and creating Category: 9/11 conspiracy theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename, but to or similar (perhaps ?). No need to shorten the name of the attacks to what basically amounts to an abbreviation. Grutness...wha?  01:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per the article 9/11 conspiracy theories (the name of which seems to be stable). Occuli (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal plus Comment and alternative proposal: Interesting -- it's exactly one year to the day since the last previous CFD for this category. At that time, only one other editor supported the nominator's proposal to rename to Category:September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories, with most (including myself) expressing concern about using such a POV term for the name of the category. While I personally would agree with the use of that common parlance descriptor for most of the articles, that doesn't change the fact that it's a POV term, and thus out of place as a category name. It also is neither fair nor accurate to label every serious challenge to the official view of 9/11 as a "conspiracy theory". Moreover, as one editor wisely pointed out, the official view of 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory" of a different sort. So as I explained in the previous CFD, I would like to see this renamed to either Category:Alternative views of the official accounts of 9/11 or Category:Alternative views of the official accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change and it had more than enough time to do so. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. These are no more than conspiracy theories, like any else; just look at Category:Conspiracy theories. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At first I was wary of the term "conspiracy theory" in this instance, but then I realized that is what most of these "alternative theories" are: They are theories which suggest there is a conspiracy behind the events of 9/11. This requires that a group of people have conspired in some way—from the extreme of saying they conspired to commit the crime, or perhaps only to cover up certain information. However, not all alternative theories are inherently theories which suggest conspiracy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to split hairs about it, the current category distinguishes alternative conspiracy theories from the official conspiracy theory. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to either title. --Eliyak T · C 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some rationale that hasn't already been discussed? This is not just a vote. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.