Talk:9/11/01

Untitled
From WP:RfD:


 * 9/11/01 → September 11, 2001 attacks. This redirect was created by user:bogusstory as a redirect for 9/11 open questions, a page he created that is now up for deletion. 9/11/01 now redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks. 9/11/01 is too ambiguous for this usage. 9/11/01 to me means 9 November 2001 and could also be interpreted as many other things. Jooler 10:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would say keep, to prevent someone creating a duplicate article at 9/11/01. I very much doubt anyone would be confused about the meaning, since I think 9/11 (used as a label, as opposed to say, e.g. a date on a letter) is now widely used as a shorthand name for the September, 11 attacks (see our redirect), and of course the "/01" ending removes any ambiguity. Noel (talk) 14:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Noel; I don't think it would confuse anyone who'd find their way to that redirect, and while it isn't the most useful redirect, keeping it would discourage re-creation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is entirely inappropriate to keep this redirect which means 9 November, to every single person outside of the United States. The next thing would be 12/7/41. It is better to not have it at all. Jooler 17:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Forget the edit war, this is a useful redirect to the september 11 attacks. Gamaliel 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * you mean a not very useful redirect (nothing links to it) for 9 November 2001. Jooler 08:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. Just because nothing links to it doesn't mean someone won't type it in the search box. Gamaliel 18:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. For fairness' sake, 11/9/01 could also redirect there.  -Sean Curtin 01:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * ??? I've never heard of "11/9" being used to refer to 9/11. Is this usage seen in places that use day/month order? Noel (talk) 16:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that 9 November 2001 was not sufficiently notable, "9/11/01", if it exists at all, should redirect to the same article that September 11, 2001 redirects to. The date is sufficiently important to justify the redirect, although I personally have never seen that exact formulation. If, however, "9/11/01" is not in common use somewhere, then I would say the bad article title is not justified. Peter Grey 05:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style
It specifically states in the 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 9/11 which is a subpage of 9. Jooler 07:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)