Talk:September 11 attacks/Title & comma archive

message: 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)
thread_title: Libraries

message: Shall we narrow things down and mark which options we support or oppose?
:Please update vote counts when voting. zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Support
#Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Support
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
#Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
#Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Rmhermen 21:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title poll?

message: :Support
#Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: September 11, 2001 attacks (8-5)

message: :Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: September 11, 2001, attacks (3-10)

message: :Support
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
#Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 (2-11)

message: :Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: September 11 attacks (6-7)

message: :Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
#Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: September 11th attacks (4-11)

message: :Support
#Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Rmhermen 21:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
#Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks of September 11, 2001 (10-6)

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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 ♣ talk 09:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title vote tally