Talk:9/11

Untitled

Is anybody going to type in 9/11 looking for anything other than the attacks of that day? Maurreen 17:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Probably not, but 9/11 does mean 9th of November to me, not 11th of September. Martin TB 17:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Martin's going to have to type in 9 November, 9th November, November 9 or November 9th if he wants to read about that date from now. I'm being bold and changing this back to the redirect:) jguk 18:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if its a case of probably not, a disambig does no harm, does it? --NeilTarrant 22:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no need for a disambiguation here. Everyone who types "9/11" into the search box knows what it means. jguk 22:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how disambiguation helps anything in this case. All it does is slow down finding the page about the attacks. Maurreen 02:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I write 9/11 on my cheque book I mean 9th of November, and so does everybody else in Britain and everybody in Ireland and everbody in South Africa and everybody in New Zealand and everybody in Australia and everybody in France and everbody in Germany and everybody in Spain and everybody in Portugal and practically every other place on the planet apart from North America. If someone tried to cash this cheque on September 12 the bank would turn them away. Jooler 16:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

While in the US 9 11 (with whichever puctuation one uses) is used to refer to the the attacks, in the United Kingdom they are generaly refered to as September 11th, or The attacks of September 11th, with the 9 11 formulation only known as a consequence of the American media, and Fahrenheit 911. --Neo 18:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dozens of pages do rely on this redirect, though this can be fixed in those articles. More importantly, though, it is a courtesy to the reader typing this in to give them the article they are undoubtedly seeking (the least suprise principle). As far as the Style Manual goes, pages should be copyedited to conform with it, but it does not cover redirects. There are countless redirects which are incorrect spelling, or capitalization, or punctuation, or otherwise do not conform to the MoS. They all should redirect to the article the reader most likely wanted. Jonathunder 19:48, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I see it's been reverted again just now, breaking the 3RR. I'm not going to revert it; I have a life to go attend to. Jonathunder 19:58, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Those dozens of pages should be fixed as per the MoS guidelines which specifically state that numeric date formats should not be used. I have made a start on that process myself, but likewise I have a life outside of Wikipedia. BTW Breaking the 3RR requires 4 edits within 24 hours, and so by my reckoning the 3RR hasn't been broken by me. Jooler

I've started to change those pages. I consider it inappropriate to refer in text to the attacks as 9/11 as this is too ambiguous of a reference, anyone who would contribute to changing those pages would be welcome. --Neo 22:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Chilean coup of 73 is also often referred to as 9/11. 81.79.153.58 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Near where I used to work there is, or for a long time was, a prominent use of "9/11" to mean "in addresses 9 and 11". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Manual of style

It specifically states in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), under Incorrect date formats That dates should NOT be expressed in purely numerical format except for ISO (YYYY-MM-DD). I should also point out that under the the Wikipedia namespace arrangments whereby a '/' represents a level change, this page is actually a subpage of 9. Jooler 07:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "9/11" was just a date, then there would be every reason to convert it to the MOS-appropriate date format. However, what we are talking about is the phrase "9/11", which originated from a day that occurs once every year, but now means to all United States citizens (and I daresay to a fair portion of non-USians as well) one specific day in history and the specific events of that day. The idea that because it originated with the date, it should therefore should be constrained to the date formats in the Manual of Style, is ridiculous. Should we get rid of or rename our article on the modern age because the time period it refers to is no longer "modern"? Must we rename Novel because it is no longer "novel"?

You're also mistaken about the namespace. There once was a time when an article title in the form xxx/yyy would have been interpreted as "yyy, a subpage of xxx", but it does not work that way anymore. It was changed specifically because otherwise any article title with a / in it would have been falsely parsed as containing a level change. It still works that way for other namespaces, which is why this talk page claims to be a subpage of Talk:9, but unless you can point to policy spelling out special treatment for any article whose title contains a virgule, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I was of the impression that articles containing '/' were still interpreted as sub-pages in the Wikipedia namespace and therefore not allowed, but that is by the by. Your examples "novel" and "modern age" are ridiculous unworthy of argument, particularly "novel" which has it's roots in the latin for "news" (gossip) rather than "new". If we are talking about 'the phrase "'9/11"' then what about the phrase "9-11"? Are they not the same phrase expressed with a slight difference in notation? How come that is a disambiguation page and this one isn't? - If I accept your argument however, then what about the other page 9/11/01. This is more clearly a date rather than a phrase, and to me and millions of other people it is 9th of September 2001, although it could mean 9th September 1901 etc.. Either way it is ambiguous and should be deleted. Jooler 08:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

To those reverting over and over again, please discuss here why you think an article should be deleted in favor of a redirect to a press release.--HoComeNobodyLikesMe 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you're a sock of a banned user and all non-productive contributions you make are to be reverted on sight. --tjstrf talk 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's not very nice. Have I made any unproductive edits? --HoComeNobodyLikesMe 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Tjstrf means that your edits are unproductive in the sense that the [meatpuppets] keep reverting them. --AnybodySeenMyMind 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've put semi-protection on this article (which is a redirect) to stop the cplot socks. It may have to be upped to full if cplot is letting some of the socks age before use. --StuffOfInterest 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to suggest that. --tjstrf talk 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm heading out (holiday party), but someone may want to do a new checkuser request on these new socks so we can hopefully get another range blocked. The old blocks are still active, which means he's found virgin IP space somewhere. --StuffOfInterest 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to put full protection on all the Bush Administration press releases before long. --WillingToFight 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rcats needed

­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect categories) added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[September 11 attacks]]

[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[September 11 attacks]]
*WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE ERASE THE TEXT ON THIS LINE & LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK.
{{Redr|printworthy|protected}}

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Also, please don't use the {{Redirect from shortcut}} Rcat, because that will place this redirect into the Unprintworthy redirects category, and this is decidedly a printworthy redirect. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 21:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Again, I just copied the {{rcat|...}}, so unsure what "the {{Redirect from shortcut}} Rcat" etc. is about. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And again, I was attempting to ensure that the third line would not be altered to include the {{R from shortcut}} Rcat. If that were done, the redirect would populate both the Printworthy and the Unprintworthy cats. Your edit was again right on. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 00:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Day can someone change it please.

I am new on here and the main reason I joined was because I have notice it has "Tuesday 11th September 2001" Whereas it was Thursday 11th September 2001. I remember it was Thursday and have just double checked incase I was wrong but it says it was Thursday not Tuesday. I don't know how to change it and would really appreciate it if someone could please? Many thanks everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire88jn (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No; September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article fully protected?

I have noticed that this article is fully protected. I think this is unnecessary for a redirect page. The September 11 attacks page should be fully protected and the redirect page only semi protected, like the September 11 attacks page is now. AprilShowersBringMayFlowers (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)AprilShowersBringMayFlowers

Apparently there was sockpuppet vandalisms in this redirect. Roostery123 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:September 11 attacks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)