Talk:Brit Army

Deletion
User:IronBattalion is proposing to delete this redirect. My view is that it should be kept as "Brit Army" is sometime used informally as an abbreviation for "British Army". For example see, ,. Note that these are not all WP:RS but listed here just to establish usage. Greenshed (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not deny that it is an abbreviation, I call brits "Brits" for a reason (I'm an Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi), but my position is that linking articles is only required once in the body, and then again in the lede if the linked article is important enough. From experience, it is practice to utilise the official (i.e. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia) or common name (i.e. Parliament of Australia), which don't have to be mutually exclusive (i.e. British Army), for the first instance which is usually when the articles are linked. At no point can I think of whereby the abbreviation is utilised before the full name (British Army), when these assumptions/points are considered. The only usage I can think of, at which this abbreviation is used, is in a table, but by that point the full name would have mentioned and linked previously. And this evidenced by the lack of articles, save one which is currently only your talk:page because I linked to it when discussing the deletion, linking to it.
 * Sincerely, IronBattalion (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Per RPURPOSE, redirects are not just for internal re-navigation but are appropriate for "Alternate forms of a name" and "Abbreviations" to name but two other reasons. Greenshed (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)