| Revision as of 23:54, 25 January 2007 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 editsm Revert confusing formatting.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:21, 16 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,880,694 editsm -redundant class param; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
| (294 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| ==This Template== | |||
| {{WikiProject United States}} | |||
| While I appreciate that people want to create things on here, there is no reason to create multiple 9/11 CT templates on single pages, especially when each one has different information. It is confusing and misrepresentative. I urge you to either delete the old 9/11 CT template, or consider merging this one into that one and work on that one. We should not have 2 and certainly not 2 which both claim to be a way to navigate the info but with different links to the same apparent info. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel strongly that we don't need more than one template. ] 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :What would be logical here is to state explicitly the other templates you are referencing. Without that a discussion is hard. I will refer you to the logic that was used when this template was created ]. ] 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Old TfD|date=2007 January 20|result=to keep}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Template talk:911ct/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives |bot=MiszaBot II |age=90 }} | |||
| == Jersey Girls, Family Steering Committee, 9/11: Press for Truth == | |||
| :The templates serve two purposes. I personally like them both. It is not confusing at all and multiple templates are used in lots of articles. --] 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The articles about these things really don't explain why they're in this template. Seems like a serious BLP/NPOV problem.] (]) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If they are not useful, people will choose not to use them. I think they are useful for navigating through related pages. Readers may not be sure exactly what they want, and this presents them with some related pages to consider. It also saves us from trying to keep in sync the 'See also' sections of related pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The article are about people who actively and publicly support statements that are being described as ]. For this reasons, the links to the articles are included in the template. As long as the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" is being regarded as a neutral, objective description of these hypotheses, there is no BLP-sensitive issue here. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess I'll add a few more of my own templates that say what I want them to say to some other pages too. I didn't realize it was so easy to do on here. Thanks. ] 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe these people actively promote conspiracy theories, but their articles don't provide any indication that that's the case, and the template needs to rely on those article for verification.] (]) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seem to be reading into this template something which is simply not present. It is NPOV, makes no comment, and is designed and intended simply as a navigation aid at the foot of relevant articles. It is an aid, no more and no less, to people who wish to navigate easily between articles. It is not designed to compete with any other template, nor to take the place of any other template. So far, apart from this one, there is no template which is suitable for all articles. ], for example, is solely to do with the Truth Movement. Where an article is not a part of that movement then that template cannot be deployed, but this one is wholly appropriate, precisely because its intent is to gather all articles together. | |||
| :::It is by no means completely loaded with all relevant articles yet. How can it be? It is a work in progress, as is Misplaced Pages. Instead of spending your time removing it, why not take a different view and work to enhance or complete it? ] 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ahem. The groups promote the theory that the 9/11 Commission ''was'' a conspiracy '''not''' to investigate the acts correctly. That qualifies as a conspiracy theory in my book, even if not specifically named in the 911ct article. The film seems less clear from the present article, but it still promotes the ''theory'' that Commission was prevented from following some investigations, which may also qualify as a conspiracy. | |||
| == Popular Culture == | |||
| :::I'm restoring the links. — ] ] 08:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ] article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The ] article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Misplaced Pages has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.] (]) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't agree that their theories are ''not'' ], but the we need to reach consensus at '''that''' article, first, so I won't reinsert. However, those theories '''are''' considered "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the real world, so that they should be there. — ] ] 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :So you're saying that you want to discuss this at the ] talk page instead? That's fine, create a new section there if you want to do that.] (]) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I want to discuss it at ], as, at least "Press for Truth", makes the claim that the 9/11 Commission was prevented from studying some aspects, and that the assertions of bias and "conflict of interest" about the Commission '''are''' 9/11 conspiracy theories, and should be noted in that article, and hence the template is applicable to those who make that assertion. — ] ] 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Charlie Sheen == | |||
| The (currently sole) article in the popular culture segment links to a mainstream TV series that takes on issues and tends to lampoon them. The show demonstrates that 9/11 CTs are in the popular culture. That it takes a view on them does not make it irrelevant here. The template is designed and intended to navigate to all articles under the umbrella without expressing any comment upon them. | |||
| I think that we should add Charlie Sheen to the template. He has publicly supported 9/11 cts on multiple occasions, and clearly wanted to associate himself with the theories. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| If the CT is valid then it will prevail. If invalid then it will not. Robust theories withstand lampooning by TV shows. ] 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose so. I think he falls more into generic conspiracy theorists, rather than 911ct, but it seems appropriate. — ] ] 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * So do completely absurd ones, like the controlled demolition theory, Elvis being abducted by aliens, or the various Kennedy conspiracy theories. Lampooning is not an indicator of anything other than existence, espoecially it is not an indicator that the theories are in any way credible. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree with you completely :) Most, if not all, of the various theories and hypotheses are the products of minds who will not accept the simple answer, even when it stands up and bites them in the backside. ] 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rosie O'Donnell == | |||
| == There is a proposal to change the title of this template == | |||
| Rosie O'Donnell should be added for the same reasons as Charlie Sheen. Although Sheen was more active in making his views known, O'Donnell also made her views public on occasions in which she was in the spotlight of public attention. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I am not yet sure what that proposal is, but I have asked the main objector to come here and discuss it. When we have a consensus we will know what to do. ] 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have asked many times that the main objector, ], comes here and builds a consensus. This is evident from his talk page. Instead he has devoted time to removal of the template, and, earlier today I was forced to put a vandalism warning in his talk page for his edit to the template that surgically removed two characters. | |||
| :I believe most strongly that a consensus is the only route forward, and I reiterate the invitation to Bov to come forward and build one here. ] 11:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apologies to everyone for all that rant. Could we please stop using this template until it's expanded or renamed? If you would prefer to use it as it is, then it should be named by its topic. ] 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is named by its topic. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've examined all this a bit more; judging by the looks of it, this template is some sort of evil twin of the existing ''truth movement'' temp? I've noticed by your recent edit that you consider it to be conspiracy theory, but we need to discuss such terminology. way or we are discussing it everywhere. Alternative hypothesis, alternative theories … are all valid substitutes. I'm certain that we are all well aware of the and this particular hypothesis doesn’t deserve such label (neither do fellow editors, prominent members, supporters…) Let me share another perspective, we can all easily agree that no one offered alternative explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. If we would pursue this down the road and with building 7 on the horizon, we would conclude that this is actually only plausible theory about collapse… Since there is nothing to confront it, it cannot be called conspiracy. So, quite seriously, I honestly think that this is excellent template for this particular (unquestionably significant) topic. If we were to rename it properly and stick it on main article it would be sight to behold, as it would certainly offer some, well needed balance (NPOV) there. ] 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] etc == | |||
| '''summary''' | |||
| Is unused, so I nominated it for deletion. ] (]) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :1. I'd really like reasonable explanation why would ''only plausible theory'' about collapse of WTC 7 be called conspiracy. On what basis? Reflecting what? Our personal opinions? Where is the kontrapunkte? | |||
| And | |||
| :2. Why is this template in use if it's not finished? Wouldn’t you agree that its current form makes him nothing else but misnamed mirror image of existing template? | |||
| :{{Tfd links|911ct/Supporters/Politicians and Officials}} | |||
| :3. Anyone can easily anticipate inclusively exclusive difficulties in future expansion (I'm anticipating this because of the comments)… | |||
| :{{Tfd links|911ct/Supporters/Political activists}} | |||
| :& Why is the proposal to name the (useful) template by its (only) subject such outrageous notion? | |||
| ] (]) 05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Change of template name with no consensus == | |||
| ::# Even if it were the only plausible theory for the collapse of WTC 7, it still involves a conspiracy. Hence it's a conspiracy theory. | |||
| ::# {{tl|911tm}} (misnamed, in my opinion) is also up for deletion, but this template sits unobtrusively at the end as if it were a collection of "See Also" links. {{tl|911tm}} takes up unreal estate (screen space) which could probably better be used for article text. | |||
| ::# Most problems involving future expansion could be resolved by "hiding" the relevant lines that one wouldn't want expanded. I see no other problems other than vandalism (removing relevant listings, and inserting irrelevant ones) by ] and attempted repurposing by ], Nuclear, and yourself. — ] | ] 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::# The individuals and groups propose other conspiracy theories — ''Controlled demolition'' is merely the only one with an article. In fact, ] is apparently coming down in favor of death rays. | |||
| :: — ] | ] 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am asking the editor who moved the template to come here and justify the move, one for which no consensus was formed. ] (]) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::#I fail to see the logic? Please elaborate. | |||
| :::#We obviously have deeply polarized opinions, and I'm afraid we will have to seek some middle ground. | |||
| :::#Most problems with expansion cannot be solved, for example if scholars turn to death ray, it will exclude the others and vice versa and it can only lead to disputes, hide and seek and other heavy intercourses. Not sure if we really wont that? & I'm not sure why you had to call names? | |||
| :::#As stated, there is no need for this if it is not expanded, why is there such urge to stick it? | |||
| ::: ] 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Sure. "911ct" is cryptic. A Porsche car? Something to do with Connecticut, maybe? The model number for a piece of (electrical) equipment? And so on. Even in the context of 9/11, ask folks on the street what "ct" might mean and I wonder if many would guess "conspiracy theory" – unless they already happened to be in that conversation. (But that'd be an assumption.) ] (]) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It appears I misunderstood you. Nuclear, gave a plausible explanation that you wanted to create a '''9/11 controlled demolition''' template. That may be a worthy cause, but hijacking a perfectly respectable '''conspiracy theory''' template for that purpose is questionable. As for specifics (not referring to existing numbers, because you're giving the same reply in more than one number) | |||
| ::::The only '''theory''' with a Misplaced Pages article is the '''controlled demolition''' theory. However, the individuals and groups named in the template may propose different theories. If you don't remove those individuals, groups, and media which support other theories than controlled demolition within the next 12 hours, I'll restore the '''conspiracy theory''' template in its original form. | |||
| ::::The template is perfectly fine in the '''conspiracy theory''' form, or as reduced by removing other entries in the '''controlled demolition''' form. Alternatively, the real '''conspiracy theory''' template might include the '''controlled demolition''' template. There is no need for expansion, unless other articles are proposed. | |||
| :::: — ] | ] 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree with your move without first building consensus and your rationale. The template name was brief, intended for easy addition to articles. You have produced a long winded name. The usage of the template was obvious. It was present and contained all the information needed. I '''oppose''' your move. With templates, especially those in use on a significant number of pages it is customary to build consensus prior to making bold moves. ] (]) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If this page was perfectly reasonable, it would not be up for deletion with half the people thinking its not perfectly reasonable. While those other individuals may propose other theories, they are not all on Misplaced Pages for their theories, to claim the theory has weight and is notable because the person is, would mean you should write an article on it and defend that article right? I guess you could easily remove people who do not fall in line with controlled demolition, however you run the risk of removing people who may have their own theory, but also support controlled demolition, so please be careful when doing so. For instance a source stating they do not believe it would be a good way to remove the basic people. --]<s>]</s> 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, given the further observations I included , it's not that long-winded a name – but it is surely a cryptic one, no? (When I first saw its name, I had to follow the link in order to get some idea of what it was about.) Is making something clearer / less ambiguous / less cryptic a bold move? Anyhow, by all means have it moved back if you wish. ] (]) 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Design considerations=== | |||
| ::::How about you undo all the work you performed? Moves of this nature without consensus are not useful. It now requires administrative intervention, so please either do this if you are an admin yourself or request it of you are not. ] (]) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| While awaiting the proposal, here are the design considerations. These will assist when reaching a consensus on the wording within the template: | |||
| #Be a simple, foot of the page, navigational template | |||
| #Be inclusive. Allow all articles which are conspiracy theories and hypotheses to be linked | |||
| #Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations | |||
| #Be NPOV in deployment. It is recognised that a template itself can imbue POV to an article. | |||
| #Not be mutually exclusive with other templates | |||
| #Neither validate nor invalidate the conspiracy theories | |||
| #Include popular culture insofar as it acknowledges the theories, whether in favour or against. | |||
| I may have been the main creator of this template, but I am not emotionally committed to anything except improving it, both in content and in deployment. I simply created it, opened it for comment, accepted those comments and then deployed it. ] 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Never mind. I've put in the request. Template names should be concise. Your quest for clarity is laudable. My view is that this was a move too far. ] (]) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations | |||
| :Isn't it interesting how a CT nav template must include ALL ideas and proponents no matter what relevance or background or even absurdity, while non-CT templates would have criteria for inclusion? This is called discrediting by association and functions to mix nonsense - space weapons, nukes, holograms, UFOs - with the real work - scientific experiments of the evidence - to dilute the real work and discredit it. Not too difficult to understand, is it? ] 22:41, 17 January 2007 o(UTC) | |||
| ::What would be more constructive is to make a positive and helpful suggestion. A template that connects the full portfolio ranging frm lamebrains to intelligentsia, from ludicrous concepts to potentially justifiable research is perfectly valid ] 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know the solution, but it is worth recognizing that frequently the distinction is blurred, in both directions, to distort issues of credibility. I would suggest that '']'' requires some element of unfounded speculation and would exclude the (few) cases of questions genuinely unanswered. ] 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't see the need to rename the template again – especially to something more cryptic – so I'd let it be. I don't imagine there'll be a glut of new articles demanding more than the occasional entry or paste of "September 11 conspiracy theories". After all, the main 9/11 template is {{tl|September 11 attacks}}, not <nowiki>{{911 attacks}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{911a}}</nowiki>. ] (]) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to me that the heading lines could solve that. Some judicious rewording there should please the majority of proponents and opponents of "non mainstream arguments". After all, nothing is set in stone. ] 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I agree that conciseness is desirable, but not to the extent that ambiguity and then the cryptic result. ] (]) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As for helpful suggestions, don't include the hoaxes and the trashing of the questions, as you do now. Meyssan and the Pentagon missile are old news and no longer promoted. The Urinal episode is derogatory towards those questioning the truth, however much you may consider it necessary to have a "pop culture" area to wedge it in there. Does the September 11th navigation box include a pop culture interpretation of its theories, or pop culture trashings of the viewpoints of the government? Nope. Why? Because promoting cartoons that trash the content (or are considered debatable on the issue of whether they support or trash) isn't supportive of the content. Just because 9/11 truth is mentioned someplace, doesn't make that source a relevant "source", it makes it so that more people can see how another corporate media venue trashes those who question. If people disagree on it, it shouldn't be on there. This is what Tom Harrison has learned on here, that he can insert anything that trashes the 9/11 truth movement as long as it says the words "conspiracy theory" in it. This is how the trashing is already done on here all over the place, so why perpetuate it? Remove the old hoaxes and the mainstream trashings. Step one. ] 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is no ambiguity. The template is a long standing template and you moved it without consensus. Your 'not seeing the need to move it again' is capable of being interpreted as a manner of seeking to impose your will rather than achieving consensus. If you believe that the template is badly named, seek a consensus for your actions. The consensus that obtained already over the entire period of its deployment until your move has been that the template's name is not in question. Discussions have happened about its content, even about its objectivity. | |||
| :::::Sorry, but you don't get to choose a "favorable" rendition of the "Truth Movement". It is what it is, since it is a loosely defined conglomeration of persons and groups. It includes all takers, everything from your favored theory to the ones you dismiss. You don't get to determine what is relevant or irrelevant. If a source describes a person or a theory as part of the movement, then it's in. Further, if we remove all of the hoaxes as you request, there wouldn't be a single mention of the movement or theories anywhere in Misplaced Pages. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I accept that you (and others) have the right to propose a change. I accept that consensus may be built for a change. When and if such consensus happens I will be content to be bound by it. But, unless and until that happens, bold moving of a template in significant use, whether you change all the templates that hitherto used the old name or not, is not an appropriate action. ] (]) 08:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This isn't 911tm ... --]<s>]</s> 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I fail to see any difference between an old hoax and a new one - both are paranoia-driven fantasy, and both have been refuted. On the other hand, a ] '''parody''' of conspiracy theories is, obviously, not itself a promotion of conspiracy theory. ] 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Well, though potentially helpful in future – beyond another five years – I guess I don't see it as being that significant a move. I don't agree, though, that the name isn't ambiguous. (Actually, as above, I'm suggesting it's more than ambiguous: it's cryptic.) Please be reassured, though, that my not seeing the need to move it again isn't because I'm wishing to impose my will and/or "POV"; again, as above, feel free to have it moved back. For the sake of consistency, how about moving ] to Template:911a (and similarly for other 9/11-related templates)..? ] (]) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The connection between conspiracy theory and popular culture is important. It is one of the main areas of academic research, as in Mark Fenster's work. Conspiracy theories are of interest as sociological phenomena. They are things people believe, and that is/should be how we write about them. The section on popular culture should be expanded, if not in the template then in the relevent articles. | |||
| ::::::::Having just spent a really tedious time reverting every last goshdarned change you made to the template in every article it is transcluded in, and having become closer and closer to suggesting that this was vandalism but restraining myself, I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts. Next time you think about moving a template in widespread use, build consensus for the move first. ] (]) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Certainly Meyssan's work and the influence it has had are important and need to be presented. | |||
| :::] <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: "I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts." | |||
| ==South Park== | |||
| ::::::::: Thanks, nonetheless, for yours. ] (]) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Until someone starts adding aouth park episodes to the Holocaust article I will remove the south part episode from this one. This is a template not for anything that has ever contained a joke, bit, comment, or article regarding 9/11 conspiracies. It is to guide readers toward connecting articles of relevance, since South Park hitler episodes do not appear on the Holocaust article, I am sure the point is understood. --]<s>]</s> 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I can see, there has only been one person objecting to this move. Personally, I support the move – for exactly the reason explained by CsDix. "911ct" is very cryptic, and "September 11 conspiracy theories" is not exceptionally lengthy or complicated. Having said that, it probably would have been a good idea for the issue to have been discussed before the move occurred. —] (]) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it woudl be preferred that you build a consensus for that action. The logic you use is interesting, but I do not see the comparison. The South Park article is an example of how the conspiracy stuff has entered the public consciousness, and thus is valid. I '''oppose''' your action. ] 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your opposition is noted, however since you have not refuted my statement, that is also noted. --]<s>]</s> 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't really see a statement to refute except with a general opposition. I'm glad you are seeking to build a consensus for your intended action. ] 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My objection has been to the draconian change, followed by changes to every single article deploying the template. This was a change that required and requires consensus. Build consensus to change the name and change the name you shall. I will object to the proposal, others will support it, others will object. That is the way of Misplaced Pages. With templates deployed on many pages the reaching of a consensus is more than a good idea. It is vital. | |||
| ::::More consensus-building . ] <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :With regard to the name, how cryptic are all the deletion templates? This is the same type of nomenclature. Templates are templates. A good template needs to be easy to add to an article. 5 characters are easy to add. ] (]) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:There should be consensus before the name is changed. I will probably not support such a change. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Yes, I agree with ], there is no place on the template for the pop culture ref. and it is inconsistent with other templates on wikipedia. There was a call for building consensus, but now that there is some, it is ignored. Who'd have guessed? ] 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see consensus for its removal, either. As ] opposes the existence of this template, I don't see his opinions as necessarily having the weight required to indicate that there ''isn't'' consensus for its addition. — ] | ] 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::As you argued fo ronthe September 11th page, concensus to add, not remove. --]<s>]</s> 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's an ''example'' of how it has entered the popular consciousness. It is not, however, an individually significant case of it; it's just Yet Another Thing Vaguely Related. Adding it to the template, with its own header and so on, just makes it look disproportionately important and suggests there is some deep hidden significance to the target article that simply isn't there. ] | ] | 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not its own header, or at least it's not meant to be; it's the header for Popular culture. It's an important part of conspiracy theory and a subject of academic study. It should stay, and be expanded. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree with Shimgray, since there are no other pop culture references in the article it looks as though it has a larger then needed importance and should be removed until such a section can be fully fleshed out. --]<s>]</s> 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == the expansion == | |||
| I just want to express thanks to Nuclear<s>Zero</s> (sp?) for the major expansion. Looking good. ] 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just finished adding the template to the extra articles that Nuclear<s>Zero</s> added. ] 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Capitalisation == | |||
| It's a nice template, but What's With All The Caps? --] 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Details! Feel free to "Wikify" ] 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This template is currently nominated for deletion == | |||
| Please see <s>]</s> and make whatever comments you wish ] 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Conspiracy vs. Alternative == | |||
| The template is named 911ct (for conspiracy theory). If someone wants to create a 911at (alternative theory) template, I have little objection. — ] | ] 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no difficulty with that at all. I foresee the same issues that we have here, but with different players, however. We do not need at present to relabel the template (the <nowiki>{{911ct}}</nowiki> name, I mean. We can simply run with the different name within the template. ] 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree I dont see the problem with having it say "alternate theory", there are things like article renames and redirects here on Misplaced Pages that you may want to read up on Arthur Rubin, it doesnt cause mass confusion or trouble, especially since the template is inserted into articles, people will not even see the name. If you need more information on page redirects or renames, please let me know. --]<s>]</s> 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Changing it from "conspiracy theory" to "alternative theory" changes the entire meaning of the template. (I feel "alternative" is incorrect, but that's another matter.) I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template. — ] | ] 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Far better to reach agreement. ] 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable. — ] | ] 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suppose suggestng that the middle east problems be deleted after a debate is out of the question? But, rather more seriously, reaching a consensus requires that people are willing to reach one, or at least to open negotiations. I am losing count of the number of times I have invited the prime reverter of the deployment of this template to the table to reach a consensus and the invitation has been ignored. {{unsigned|Timtrent}} 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think if Arthur Rubin is gonig to refuse to discuss at all a middle ground, then it should be noted his objections and refusals, and the discussion should proceed. I am not sure how alternate theories can be "wrong" when they are not the accepted version, they are clearly an alternate being offered. --]<s>]</s> 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The name of the top-level page is ]. Renaming that has been discussed at length. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes lucky we always have the option to rediscuss. Care to add your comments to the current discussion?--]<s>]</s> 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::When has anyone proposed a middle ground? | |||
| ::They '''are''' all conspiracy theories, in fact, as they all require government and/or mainstream news media conspiracies in order to "suppress" the "facts". — ] | ] 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are alternate theories, hence why they are alternate to the main. Sorry but since you refuse to budge I will note that fact and your refusal to even look at a middle ground and move on to discussing it with others. --]<s>]</s> 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit wars == | |||
| There are '''no''' arguments presented here that it should be "Alternative Theories". I'm not going to consider it such, but an uninvolved admin might consider those changes vandalism unless discussed. ] and ]<s>]</s> seem to be well aware of this page, and should present any arguments they may have to support "alternative theories" on this talk page. — ] | ] 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It should be pointed out that I oppose the parody site being there, also, but as any change at this point (other than the addition of a completely unrelated article) would be a reversion, I cannot make the change myself. If one of the enemies of conspiracy would remove that section alone, it would be appreciated. — ] | ] 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Enemies of conspiracy" who is this? Anyway I am sorry you see enforcing a concensus to be vandalism and have announced that you will violate Wiki policy by discussing things with your fellow editors. --]<s>]</s> 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I should have said enemies of (the word) "conspiracy". There is clearly no concensus for "alternative" at this time, as you and bov are the only editors who have expressed approval in these talk pages. There has also been no "middle ground" proposed. — ] | ] 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What exactly is the purpose of this template? If it is to serve any, then it should be placed on main 911 article, and/or main 911 article should be placed on this template, right? You've probably noticed that I'm a bit reluctant to get into fiery discussion about terminology, since "official account" of events is called conspiracy by so many. Well, after given it some thought, I'd go for alternative (for it gives us valid base to add main article to this template). However, there is also room for middle ground here, as well as somewhat different direction; if we would refer to these "alternative theories" as to "independent investigations" (there is actually WWW consensus on this) we would come much closer to NPOV terminology. I'm pointing this out because the template is obviously focused on controlled demolition hypotheses (I've quick scanned the article and find no reference to any form of conspiracy there). Anyway, try to take a look at the template and see it as: Independent investigations, hypotheses, proponents & supporters, and popular culture… If you would kindly share your thoughts. ] 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You asked about the purpose. That is set out in part in ] above. The overall purpose is to be wholly inclusive. I see your point that the sole theory/hypothesis included so far is the CDH, but that is a thing that time can cure with ease. You could, if you choose, cure that yourself. Death rays and other amusing oddities are perfectly includable. They just have not been so far. ] 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nope, it should be clear by now that I don't appreciate mixture of "nonsense" and science. If you would implement death rays in same template in which is this particular hypothesis I'd have to fight that vigorously. ] 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Some of us think that the controlled demolition theory is ''disproved'' by the observations, so that it is as credible as "death rays". (Or at least terawatt IR lasers — also disproved by the observations, but just as scientific.) — ] | ] 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Not sure what to say, perhaps some of you should go back to ;P ] 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A ] search of news articles finds 202 results for "9/11" + "alternative theories"; searching "9/11" + "conspiracy theories" yields 5,167 results. "Conspiracy theory" is by far the most common term used to describe these theories. We are required to use the most common term. --] <small>(])</small> 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Aude, good to see you again, as noted above, this template is based on hypothesis, not conspiracies. ] 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS. As a matter of fact, it appears to be very precise, very singular topic/template. ] 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Alternative hypothesis" is not used by the news media. Only found one instance of its use- in a quote by ]. We must use the most common term -- "9/11 conspiracy theories". --] <small>(])</small> 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, we are not talking about "Alternative hypothesis", nor "Conspiracy theories", we are talking about "Controlled demolition hypothesis" (very precise, singular, not plural). ] 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we are talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are theories involving controlled demolition; theories involving Jews; and others involving space-based energy weapons, lizard men from another dimension, and holographic planes. They have a page: ]. They have a number of sub-pages (all of which now have 'nofollow' in the links, praise Jimbo). Misplaced Pages includes such an extensive body of material on these conspiracy theories that the average reader would find this navigation template helpful. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, as it stands now this is singular issue, you may even call it a flaw in the template… if you won't to name it as "conspiracy template", it needs to be expanded. As it is, the only proper title would be: "Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center". As for nephites, lizards, snakes, and death rays from other dimension, you're really pushing it of the topic Tom;). It is something I'd sooner expect from Devonshire lineage… ] 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think you underestimate, or at least understate, the popularity of David Icke. Most of 9/11 conspiracy theory is right in line with the rest of western conspiracy theory, going back to the 1820s at least. Until a few years ago, most conspiracy theories had been coming from the right; now the left is joining in, as with the ]. Now that I think of it, that might be another page to include in the template. I don't know what Morton's lineage has to do with anything. I hope you don't subscribe to that 'Illumniati bloodlines' nonsense. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but all that has nothing to do with freefall, and domino effects and PNAC (which is, as you are well aware of, fascism by the very definition of it) "freedom agenda" and so on... Those who orchestrated event of this magnitude should have been aware of ] and I'm not about to guess where will we end up from initial condition. Judging by the unfolding history it will simply blowback - as it always does. Well, let us leave quantum mechanics, metaphysics and bloodlines (simply had to poke you with that one;) for some other time. It's more of a topic we could enjoy while drinking fine vino in front of the fireplace. Now, about the template, this singular issue could easily be most important of them all, and there might be some fortuna in all this, since the hypothesis doesn’t (emphasis added) belong to the realm of conspiracy. Perhaps we should seek a consensus and implement it for what it is? I certainly hope that you are not one of those who is eating pancakes and defying gravity? ] 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I don't see how you could seriously argue that 'controlled demolition' is not part of the larger pantheon of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it has developed an elevated status, it certainly hasn't in the ], where it is indeed lumped-in with David Icke's ], and that's our measuring stick. Oh, and to speak my name as if it were a 'swear word'; I am shocked! <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hola Morton, remember how u used to greet the visitors on your talk page? Guess you learned some decency since our last encounter… About your point, I'm sorry, but while I find your contribution to Wiki rather amusing, such nonchalant approach does discredit your work and it's hard for me to take you seriously. Your arguments and reflections about such important issues as this one are nothing but derogatory and/or libelous, which is needless to say such POV that would (under normal conditions and in normal work environment) force you to exclude yourself from most of discussions. As for this (repeating) insertions of David Icke (who is ''btw'' somewhat marginal, although dramatis persona here in Europa, since his lectures are basically gatherings of fascist, and that is more than reason enough to simply avoid any deeper study of his work, well, at least from my perspective…) if you would kindly cut the crap? That is, are we talking about template which deals with inconsistencies of 911 events, or are we talking about general conspiracy template for every single nonsense that floats out there? As stated before, and as it stands now this is singular topic template, I'd use it as such along with ''already established name'' (apparently some sort of consensus was already reached, since article acknowledges hypothesis, not a conspiracy), ''imo'' it would improve our encyclopedia. However, I'm not about to fight this, nor I care deeply about this particular draft since "agenda" behind it does seem a bit fuzzy. One thing is certain though, if you are about to mix science with fiction, we'll cross our (s)words. Shalom! ] 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Aleichem shalom, my friend Che. But you misunderstand me -- the fact that anybody on Misplaced Pages makes distinctions between 'nonsense conspiracy theories' and 'established conspiracy theories' is of no import. Reputable sources make no such distinction, and since we are bound not by what we decide here but by what ], we are not permitted to make those distinctions -- to do otherwise would be to engage in synthesis/original research. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::More humor? Some sort of labeling? None of these researchers deserve to hear that word from you. I've told you once how I find it all very amusing. Let me explain, apparently, you are viciously insulting a vast amount of people the very moment you strike the keyboard and type conspiracy. I wasn’t kidding before, do you honestly think that you can contribute to this discussion when your user page is pure pattern of very reason we are having this dispute? You my friend are redefining the very meaning of the term POV, leading it where no POV has been before. ] 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're still not addressing the point. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's a follow . ] 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's merely advocacy for your position that one set of theories is more 'reasonable' than another set -- if you want to advocate, do it off-Wiki. There's no place for original research here on the Wiki -- our ] don't permit that. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Glass houses and all. Have you seen your own userpage? --]<s>]</s> 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] applies to articles. Get over 'it', whatever 'it' is, please. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You mean templates because this isnt an article, still dont get why you are arguing NOR. You made a statement that "Reputable sources make no such distinction," when addressing the difference in conspiracy theories is quite the case of NOR, care to cite your source where they do not? I am anxious to see it. I hope you are not running around making statements then asking others not to violate NOR when they say you are wrong. --]<s>]</s> 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I said, your bias prevents you to judge this properly, if you could, then you wouldn’t portray my arguments as advocacy, while thinking about my proposal as some form of conspiracy. I'm not trying to bite or anything, I've told you that I find all that amusing, however, your position is self declared. I've made more than one point in effort to illustrate why this template's current caption is flawed. One could argue that part of it is based on such (hopefully unnecessary WP's as WP Ethics) but there are also some purely logical, technical flaws. ] 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My personal feelings don't impact our rules at ] & ], which you still have to follow, and you still don't understand that they apply to your attempted distinction between 9/11 conspiracy theories. <font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Just check the design notes, every single one is violated. As it is, this template refers to only one event (it's not inclusive), and one single article. Article which is correctly named, did those researches called their own thesis conspiracies? They haven't, so what kind of authority we have here? What gives us right to label them with such label? To who are you referring while seeking reputable sources? Give me just one sample of good reputable source (except this hypothesis) which will explain descend of WTC 7. One. If you would like to associate template with conspiracy theories you'll need to expand it by your own design lines. Until then, there is no reason for its distribution. You cannot go around with such draft. ] 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::If this were the 'controlled demolition' template you might have a point. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Templates can be renamed, if the template is found to be covering only one topic it could easily be renamed to match that. I am sure you already know about page renames however. --]<s>]</s> 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:21, 16 December 2024
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 20. The result of the discussion was "to keep". |
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Jersey Girls, Family Steering Committee, 9/11: Press for Truth
The articles about these things really don't explain why they're in this template. Seems like a serious BLP/NPOV problem.Prezbo (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article are about people who actively and publicly support statements that are being described as 9/11 conspiracy theories. For this reasons, the links to the articles are included in the template. As long as the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" is being regarded as a neutral, objective description of these hypotheses, there is no BLP-sensitive issue here. Cs32en Talk to me 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe these people actively promote conspiracy theories, but their articles don't provide any indication that that's the case, and the template needs to rely on those article for verification.Prezbo (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem. The groups promote the theory that the 9/11 Commission was a conspiracy not to investigate the acts correctly. That qualifies as a conspiracy theory in my book, even if not specifically named in the 911ct article. The film seems less clear from the present article, but it still promotes the theory that Commission was prevented from following some investigations, which may also qualify as a conspiracy.
- I'm restoring the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The 9/11 Family Steering Committee article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The Jersey Girls article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Misplaced Pages has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.Prezbo (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree that their theories are not 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the we need to reach consensus at that article, first, so I won't reinsert. However, those theories are considered "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the real world, so that they should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The 9/11 Family Steering Committee article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The Jersey Girls article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Misplaced Pages has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.Prezbo (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying that you want to discuss this at the Jersey Girls talk page instead? That's fine, create a new section there if you want to do that.Prezbo (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I want to discuss it at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, as, at least "Press for Truth", makes the claim that the 9/11 Commission was prevented from studying some aspects, and that the assertions of bias and "conflict of interest" about the Commission are 9/11 conspiracy theories, and should be noted in that article, and hence the template is applicable to those who make that assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Charlie Sheen
I think that we should add Charlie Sheen to the template. He has publicly supported 9/11 cts on multiple occasions, and clearly wanted to associate himself with the theories. Cs32en Talk to me 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose so. I think he falls more into generic conspiracy theorists, rather than 911ct, but it seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Rosie O'Donnell
Rosie O'Donnell should be added for the same reasons as Charlie Sheen. Although Sheen was more active in making his views known, O'Donnell also made her views public on occasions in which she was in the spotlight of public attention. Cs32en Talk to me 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:911ct/Supporters/Scholars etc
Is unused, so I nominated it for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) And
- Template:911ct/Supporters/Politicians and Officials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:911ct/Supporters/Political activists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Bulwersator (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Change of template name with no consensus
I am asking the editor who moved the template to come here and justify the move, one for which no consensus was formed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. "911ct" is cryptic. A Porsche car? Something to do with Connecticut, maybe? The model number for a piece of (electrical) equipment? And so on. Even in the context of 9/11, ask folks on the street what "ct" might mean and I wonder if many would guess "conspiracy theory" – unless they already happened to be in that conversation. (But that'd be an assumption.) CsDix (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with your move without first building consensus and your rationale. The template name was brief, intended for easy addition to articles. You have produced a long winded name. The usage of the template was obvious. It was present and contained all the information needed. I oppose your move. With templates, especially those in use on a significant number of pages it is customary to build consensus prior to making bold moves. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given the further observations I included here, it's not that long-winded a name – but it is surely a cryptic one, no? (When I first saw its name, I had to follow the link in order to get some idea of what it was about.) Is making something clearer / less ambiguous / less cryptic a bold move? Anyhow, by all means have it moved back if you wish. CsDix (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- How about you undo all the work you performed? Moves of this nature without consensus are not useful. It now requires administrative intervention, so please either do this if you are an admin yourself or request it of you are not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind. I've put in the request. Template names should be concise. Your quest for clarity is laudable. My view is that this was a move too far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to rename the template again – especially to something more cryptic – so I'd let it be. I don't imagine there'll be a glut of new articles demanding more than the occasional entry or paste of "September 11 conspiracy theories". After all, the main 9/11 template is {{September 11 attacks}}, not {{911 attacks}} or {{911a}}. CsDix (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that conciseness is desirable, but not to the extent that ambiguity and then the cryptic result. CsDix (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no ambiguity. The template is a long standing template and you moved it without consensus. Your 'not seeing the need to move it again' is capable of being interpreted as a manner of seeking to impose your will rather than achieving consensus. If you believe that the template is badly named, seek a consensus for your actions. The consensus that obtained already over the entire period of its deployment until your move has been that the template's name is not in question. Discussions have happened about its content, even about its objectivity.
- I accept that you (and others) have the right to propose a change. I accept that consensus may be built for a change. When and if such consensus happens I will be content to be bound by it. But, unless and until that happens, bold moving of a template in significant use, whether you change all the templates that hitherto used the old name or not, is not an appropriate action. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, though potentially helpful in future – beyond another five years – I guess I don't see it as being that significant a move. I don't agree, though, that the name isn't ambiguous. (Actually, as above, I'm suggesting it's more than ambiguous: it's cryptic.) Please be reassured, though, that my not seeing the need to move it again isn't because I'm wishing to impose my will and/or "POV"; again, as above, feel free to have it moved back. For the sake of consistency, how about moving Template:September 11 attacks to Template:911a (and similarly for other 9/11-related templates)..? CsDix (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having just spent a really tedious time reverting every last goshdarned change you made to the template in every article it is transcluded in, and having become closer and closer to suggesting that this was vandalism but restraining myself, I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts. Next time you think about moving a template in widespread use, build consensus for the move first. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- "I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts."
- Thanks, nonetheless, for yours. CsDix (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there has only been one person objecting to this move. Personally, I support the move – for exactly the reason explained by CsDix. "911ct" is very cryptic, and "September 11 conspiracy theories" is not exceptionally lengthy or complicated. Having said that, it probably would have been a good idea for the issue to have been discussed before the move occurred. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- My objection has been to the draconian change, followed by changes to every single article deploying the template. This was a change that required and requires consensus. Build consensus to change the name and change the name you shall. I will object to the proposal, others will support it, others will object. That is the way of Misplaced Pages. With templates deployed on many pages the reaching of a consensus is more than a good idea. It is vital.
- With regard to the name, how cryptic are all the deletion templates? This is the same type of nomenclature. Templates are templates. A good template needs to be easy to add to an article. 5 characters are easy to add. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- There should be consensus before the name is changed. I will probably not support such a change. Tom Harrison 23:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)