Forum:Removal of New Timeline and NT from articles

Regarding the removal of "New Timeline" and the arbitration "NT" from articles, these are first and foremost good faith edits to end the use of two different monikers for the same information, since MA should strive to remain constant as part of us being "definitive, accurate, and accessible". Secondly, I chose to and use use common sense when choosing which of the two to remove because:
 * 1) There is a snowballs chance in hell that any consensus would be unanimous or even reachable.
 * 2) It's much easier to make the minor changes to templates and calls then move entire pages
 * 3) One of these terms is inconsistent with long established and existing MA polcies.

There have been several previous discussions about this, and none of them have resulted in a single term being used, with many points for one or the other. For simplicity sake, I've only listed the main points of contention in relation to choosing one over the other:
 * Alternate reality is too generic and confusing, but was used in canon
 * New timeline breaks POV and is a completely made up fan term.

Generic as it may be, I don't see how it can be more confusing than using two terms, and we haven't had a slew of people unable to figure out the difference. We also have plenty of generic term articles because that was the term used in canon, or when we forgo the canon term, the one we use was used in production material. New Timeline simply was not used anywhere in canon or in production material. We invented it, plain and simple. If we're going forgoing/change the POV and the canon policy, I have no problem with it, but as it stands right now, we can't use it and remain within MA policy.

That said, if we decided here, based on past discussions and this one to use the term "New Timeline", we need to change the POV, the canon policy, and all uses of the term "alternate reality". This includes all uses of the alt template, the alt disambiguation template, the page titles, and the article. We should not simply revert to the use of both terms, as there is no reason to not settle this civilly here and now. - 11:19, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree.–Cleanse ( talk 11:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --31dot 12:23, May 25, 2011 (UTC)