Talk:9/11/01

Untitled

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)[reply]

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 9/11 which is a subpage of 9. Jooler 07:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)