The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. This redirect was determined to be helpful enough. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Create wikipage → Help:Your first article  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

“Wikipage" is an obscure word. Newer people may use terms like page or (correctly) article, but probably not wikipage. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipage is the general name for a page on a wiki, I see people at the teahouse quite often asking for help with "writing their wikipage". This is exactly the kind of term where a cross namespace redirect is helpful, the people who are searching for this are probably too new to know that different namespaces exist. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep 192..78 makes a good point. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is far from the only wiki and this is not a prominent enough phrase to warrant an WP:XNR. Interestingly, Wikipage is red. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Normally I don't consider IP addresses in discussions but the 192 IP has a good keep argument Qwv (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiki and add a ((selfref)) hatnote to handle it for the HELP page -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that someone searching specifically for "Create wikipage" is likely to be looking for general information on wikis, I think it far more likely they are looking for information on how to create a page. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then it should be deleted, because it is not reader facing content. Either it points to wiki or it should be deleted for leading the readership into editorship material -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I think this is helpful to new users who don't yet understand namespaces. Have read through both sets of arguments. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep New users are the most likely not to understand the various wikipedia spaces and so are likely to search mainspace. Retargeting to random mainspace article that happens to be named "Wiki" makes little sense and deletion because it's cross namespace is overly bureaucratic.Slywriter (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If one is typing 'create wikipage' into the search bar they probably have a rudimentary understanding of Wikipedia. It's good to guide newcomers in the right direction so that they can become productive editors on the platform. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Assembly of Guiana → Assembly of French Guiana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague target: we're assuming that, when someone searches 'Guiana' that they mean 'French Guiana'. This ignores similar names in Guyana and Guinea. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Guinea should not be relevant to this discussion, since correct spellings should always take precedence over incorrect spellings when deciding redirect targets. However, Guyana was called British Guiana up until independence, and the lower chamber of its legislature was the House of Assembly (British Guiana). I see some printed sources ([1]) referring to an earlier governing body (the Combined Court?) as the "Assembly of Guiana" too. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think that maybe we should just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between the current target and House of Assembly (British Guiana). Jay (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my vote per No such user's assertion that this is an outdated name, and IP65's comment that we do not know what exactly the printed sources using this were referring to. Jay (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we disambiguate this, then we should disambiguate every "X of Guiana" page, and it's just not viable. "Guiana" is largely an outdated name, so in the unlikely event someone types "Assembly of Guiana" (has anyone ever?) we should not guess what they meant; let them use the search engine. No such user (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Names of the Holocaust#Khurban and destruction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• חורבן אייראפע → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Khurbn eyrope → Names of the Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Churban Europa → Names of the Holocaust#Khurban and destruction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• חורבן אײראָפּע → Names of the Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All of these redirects have virtually the same name. I think it should be retargeted to one of them QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say Retarget all to The Holocaust, seems like the most likely target. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is anyone going to know what the redirects mean? If you redirect to a long article with no way to explain to the reader why, what good will that do? I found an alternate meaning of "Churban" and it is explained at Names of the Holocaust#Khurban and destruction.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Names of the Holocaust#Khurban and destruction: The section on the page Names of the Holocaust both lets the reader know that Khurban Eyrope is the Yiddish name for the Holocaust and will also provide context that is helpful as to the significance and history of the name. TartarTorte 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Hebrew alphabet terms, people on the English Wikipedia are unlikely to be searching in non-Latin scripts. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't seem to violate WP:RLOTE and in my view there is a reasonable chance someone could come across either of the Yiddish terms spelled in Yiddish alphabet. With a wide, wide variance in transliteration of Yiddish into English due to vast differences in the pronunciation of certain words, having a Yiddish spelling allows for some who comes across Ḥurbn eyrope would have difficulty finding the concept but with only one Yiddish spelling (חורבן אייראפע being the unpointed version of חורבן אײראָפּע are essentially the same spelling), there is an inherent ease in finding those versus the countless possible transliterations of the term. TartarTorte 14:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fat land parrot → Kākāpō  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Turkey parrot → Kākāpō  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not appear to be an in-use alternative name, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like a joke. It does match the bird's description though --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but admittedly, it did give me a good laugh. Schwede66 09:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And Turkey parrot, created by the same user around the same time and also a redirect to Kākāpō. Nurg (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the OP and I had never heard of this amazing and highly endangered creature. When seeing the "fat land parrot" and the "turkey parrot" on TicToc, I truly thought it was a joke. NOBODY used the obscure official name, Kākāpō. Perhaps if people were more aware of this rare and almost-gone species (fewer than 200 individuals left), it could help the threadbare preservation effort. The poor bird is so obscure that the very obscurity contributes to its rarity so to speak. None of the young crowd would even know the term Kākāpō to try to look it up. With the nicknames "fat land parrot" and "turkey parrot" redirecting there, well some will find the scholarly info. Best wishes. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide any examples of RS that use this phrase? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What's more, see WP:RFD#KEEP: Keep #3 and #5. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that unless we have evidence of use in an RS, or evidence of very broad use outside of RS, there's a good chance that we will inadvertently provide users with misinformation if there are other birds that could be referred to by these terms. If the TikTok videos that you are referring to don't use the term "kakapo", how do you know that they are referring specifically to this bird? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  res ipsa it clearly is this odd bird; there is nothing like this deeply weird creature --unless someone dips a woodchuck in green feathers. I had to dig and dig to fin the official name. Heck, by the time the New York Times runs a feature article about them and also in the same story happens to drop the young crowd's nickname for them, they'll be extinct. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Risk of misinformation? For reals? Pfft, prove *that* --there's no mistaking this oddity. It's just that nobody knows or uses the official name. Redirects are cheap and harm nobody. And again: #3 and #5 under WP Keep. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a joke, right? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A species going extinct NOW is funny to you? Laugh it up. Cramyourspam (talk) Cramyourspam (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to include similar redirect Turkey parrot
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the OP is trolling us. "Kākāpō" and "kakapo" are terms in extremely common usage and "fat land parrot" and "turkey parrot" are clearly jokes (Google brings up these redirects as the top results, Google trends shows minimal/no searches for either). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There are no mentions of either term on TikTok, either. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am saddened to know that this animal is near extinction but, unfortunately, we are not a WP:SOAPBOX, which @Cramyourspam has admitted to attempting in above messages. I also suspect this guy may be trolling us but we have to assume good faith and all that. It would be unusual for this guy to be trolling, given his user contribs show a history of legitimate editing. If you're legitimately concerned about this, contact some wildlife foundations and the New York Times or something. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, good point, I shouldn't have jumped to assuming trolling. Apologies, OP. (Although, I don't quite follow the logic as to why retaining these terms as redirects could possibly contribute to the kākāpō's conservation; I also note that there is extensive and well-publicised conservation work ongoing in New Zealand, as outlined in the article.) Chocmilk03 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:R#D8 (obscure name) outweighs keep #3 and #5. I get one result from Twitter, but this is from the end of May, while the redirect was created the mid of May. We won't know whether one tiktok video was the source of all this. Jay (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dansou → Otokonoko  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

During the last RFD in 2020, content about this Japanese term was added to the target (which discusses a related but non-synonymous phenomenon). Consensus was established that the Japanese term is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over Alois Dansou. However the added content was removed in 2021 as the sole source cited in support was WP:SPS. Also there's now another article about a person with this surname (Marc Dansou). Either better sources should be identified to add this topic to the target (or a different target where it would fit better), or this should be turned into a disambiguation page or WP:SETINDEX. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging participants in the last RFD: @Rosguill, AngusWOOF, CycloneYoris, and Tavix. (I was the IP participant 59.149.124.29 in that discussion). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there has been no addition to the target. A disambig draft will also help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a SETindexify per nom between the two surnames, as two relists have failed to come up with anything at the current target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have drafted a set index for the surname. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dodge Avenger Concept → Dodge Avenger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of the concept on the article only the production models are mentioned Qwv (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Created as an article [2] by Bavaria about the Dodge Avenger before the exact content was added to Dodge Avenger ([3]) (which itself had been a redirect to that point) by an IP 3 minutes later, presumably Bavaria logged out as a further two minutes later Dodge Avenger Concept was BLARed to the current target. Bavaria then made many further edits to Dodge Avenger. So then perhaps it would be necessary to perform a histmerge before deletion but the redirect itself is unhelpful as no concept cars are mentioned. A7V2 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - The article mentions a "concept" in passing in the second section. There was also a Dodge Avenger concept car in 2003 which the production car seems to share some styling cues with. That said, it's a tenuous link and only a passing mention with no additional detail, and "Concept" probably shouldn't be capitalized. --Sable232 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A7V2. I will leave the histmerge decision to those who are smarter than myself about the technicalities behind the wiki. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shell Cottage → Places in Harry Potter#Shell Cottage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ambiguous, there are a load of real places called "shell cottage" too, see for example Carton House#Shell Cottage or Cullenstown. I don't think a set index would really work well here as a lot of the mentions are in other articles, so I am proposing deletion to reveal the search results. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate WP:DAB: potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic -- this would be a subtopic disambiguation page -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per anon --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambig draft will help in the discussion. There are a lot of mentions in other articles per nom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Make disambiguation per nom and anon. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 08:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony Cornhole → Tony Kornheiser  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't find any significant usage related to this person, other than as an insult. Probably why the entry .*corn[- ]?hole (titles ending with cornhole) is on the title blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Stress relief (disambiguation). The late retarget suggestion appears to address the concerns of the delete camp, so I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion in favor of that outcome despite the parity in strict vote count. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stress relieving → Annealing (materials science)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From reading the annealing page it seems that annealing != stress relief but annealing can relieve stress.. "The amount of process-initiating Gibbs free energy in a deformed metal is also reduced by the annealing process. In practice and industry, this reduction of Gibbs free energy is termed stress relief.". The heat treating page includes a dedicated stress relief section.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treating#Stress_relieving Wallby (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The concept of getting relief from some stressor is an extremely broad one. Seems like no specific article currently exists that would be right to go to. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stress relief could mean what it does with regard to metal, but also (only increasingly) with human stress. I say let search do its work. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per WP:ASTONISH --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Stress relief (disambiguation), which I have just created for the purpose of retargeting this term there. BD2412 T 05:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay with this Dab as well if deletion won't push through --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to stress relief (disambiguation). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Stress relief (disambiguation) per BD2412 et al. I see no point in deleting now that this target exists. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohrid mantle → Archbishopric of Ohrid (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name seem vague, almost nonsensical to me: I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. It certainly does not refer to any religious group, from what I found via a Google search. All I could find is the desription of this very small image (whose details cannot be distinguished). The description is unsourced apart from a mention of the "National Historical Museum of Bulgaria", but I found nothing about this on the museum's website. I see no good retarget.
Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Veverve, I think it is about the Mantle (monastic vesture) which should represent the bearer's authority on that particular church body. With that said, I think this is still an obscure synoynm at best, confusing at worst redirect so Delete. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under the R3 criterion. Per M Imtiaz' comment and this Google search, this appears to be an implausible typo[ ] or misnomer[ ]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ھنھدھ → Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Violation of WP:RLOTE. FAdesdae378 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a language of Canada and not something anyone would ever use on enwiki to search for it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What language is this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu I think. Canterbury Tail talk 11:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, this is not Urdu, but in fact gibberish; the best possible reading of it that I can come up with is "hanhadh" (which is just as meaningless in Urdu, and in any other plausible language that I can think of, as it is in English). The correct Urdu spelling would be کینیڈا. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that abjads, such as the Perso-Arabic-based script used to write Urdu, have important differences from the alphabets with which Western readers are more familiar, hence the reference to a "reading" above: the same set of characters could form several words with distinct pronunciations, but in this case, none of these seem to be reasonably close to "Canada". M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is totally unrelated to Canadian culture. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per M Imtiaz's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Youssef Zidan → Kunal Nayyar#Career  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a weird case. This redirect refers to a fictional character, but points to the actor's article. List of NCIS characters and NCIS (season 4) do not mention the character, either. I'd rather redirect to the former, but I imagine some people would want it gone as the article doesn't mention the character by name. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly not what Nayyar is known for, and, in the context of NCIS, a minor character who only appeared in one episode. GrindtXX (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What are notability guidelines for redirects? Apokrif (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment n.b. the current target does mention the Youssef Zidan role, not sure I see the harm in keeping at the moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor fictional character. Instead retarget to Youssef Ziedan as ((R from misspelling)) and remove the hatnote from there to avoid self-redirect. Jay (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Not enough consensus for deletion, nor for retargeting somewhere else. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ꑭ → wiktionary:ꑭ  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:SSRT and per just ... why? It's a word in a different language, just like there are millions of words. Fram (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Due to the ongoing Siege of Mariupol (where fighters of the Azov Battalion have been surrounded by the Russian Armed Forces), ꑭ has become a recent Twitter trend, and there's no applicable Wikipedia article for it, so I thought it'd probably be of benefit to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary in case curious readers came looking for it. That's the full extent of my rationale, essentially. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For some extra info, see Ідея нації [uk] and Wolfsangel#Post World War II symbolism; people are using ꑭ to represent that symbol in text as it looks similar. It is for sure a plausible search term, though I don't know much about wiktionary redirects so I'll leave it to someone else to !vote on what the appropriate action is. Endwise (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)If you created this because people might be looking for Wolfsangel but mistakenly, somehow, use the Yi character instead, then why not change this Wiktionary redirect into a redirect to Wolfsangel? Your reasoning seem to be that people are looking for this, using this symbol as a search term (as it is a Twitter tag), and then you would deliberately send them to a Wiktionary page they have no interest in? That makes no sense or at least isn't reader-friendly. Fram (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, a redirect to Wolfsangel could potentially work as well. The Unicode Consortium doesn't consider ꑭ a wolfsangel, however; it fits within the Sichuan Yi Syllables codeblock at codepoint U+A46D. I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide where the redirect should go (or whether it should be redirected at all). I've considered amending wikt:ꑭ to add a short mention regarding the Azov usage, however ultimately opted not to because the rule of thumb provided at wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is minimum of one year of attested usage, and ꑭ has not been used for more than a month in the Azov sense. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Yi_script#Modern_Yi as a character in that script, with a ((distinguish)) hatnote to Wolfsangel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment seems to me that this is a Neologism, so WP:NEO is the appropriate guideline. Clearly there are hundreds of twitter posts with the hashtag, but only 12 hits in google news (and none in English), so a redirect somewhere content-related is clearly in order. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it seems likely that most people searching for this character on en.wiki are looking for Wolfsangel, but it appears that there hasn't been enough usage to meet wiktionary standards, so my conclusion is that we're not prepared to host a redirect of this character yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a clearer consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The most remarkable formula in mathematics → Euler's formula  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Most Remarkable Formula In The World → Euler's formula  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think that which one is "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" depends on the person, so I suggest delete the redirect. SilverMatsu (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW, Tamzin, Chatul, Mgnbar, CRGreathouse, and PatrickR2:, and 192.76.8.78. Thank you for your comments. I add "The Most Remarkable Formula In The World" to the list.--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The redirect presumably goes back to a Richard Feynman quote, who termed Euler's formula "the most remarkable formulas in mathematics" on page 10 of Chapter 22 of his Lectures on Physics. Felix QW (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an ((r from quote)) / ((r non-neutral)), unless someone can show evidence that this has been used to refer to more than one formula (in which case we should either hatnote or setindexify). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've seen Euler's identity referred to in those terms, but it's just a special case of Euler's formula. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless more than the Feynman source can be found. Absent reliable sources, an article with this title would be a gross POV violation, right? Well, a redirect is basically an article with a different title. Mgnbar (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do think that this may be the most remarkable formula in mathematics, but I don't think that Wikipedia should adopt this stance by keeping the redirect. It's an NPOV issue. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Euler's formula is indeed remarkable, but declaring it "the most remarkable" is an opinion and not a fact. Feynman himself may have said it in jest, or just to emphasize the importance of the formula. Just as when one says "this player is the most remarkable player ever." Please delete. PatrickR2 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Euler's identity or Keep, perhaps specifically the section "Mathematical beauty" which directly mentions this phrase. This is a well known quote about this identity, and it does not appear to be ambiguous with anything else. Redirecting famous quotes about X to the article on X is not a NPOV violation even if the original quote is not neutral, see WP:RNEUTRAL. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Updated to "retarget or keep" 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment itself illustrates that there is no consensus on what "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" would be. Feynman was referring to Euler's formula and not Euler's identity. (Still not a reason to keep it as is either.) PatrickR2 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On the equation Vs identity point I have no strong preference, they are essentially two sides of the same coin and the phrase does seem to be used/quoted in reference to both of them. Have a look at any search engine and you'll find that this phrase is used to describe basically nothing except Euler's Identity/Formula, e.g. google books. You'll find all kinds of textbooks quoting this phrase, e.g. [4] [5] allways in relation to this equation/identity. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another reason to not keep this is that this redirect is currently not used in a meaningful way from any other article (just two private draft pages and a bookkeeping page it seems). I don't think mathematicians among us want to encourage the use of this turn of phrase as it is subjective and open for debate. See https://www.livescience.com/57849-greatest-mathematical-equations.html for example, which mentions other candidates, for example the Pythagoras theorem (a^2+b^2=c^2), or Euler's formula for polyhedra (V-E+F=2), but does not mention the other Euler formula? PatrickR2 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not leave multiple bolded !votes in the same discussion. Any extra comments you wish to make should be left as comments without the bolded vote. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Thanks for the procedure explanation. PatrickR2 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere in that article is the phrase "The most remarkable formula in mathematics" used. Redirects exist to link search terms to articles where readers will find content they are looking for. They do not have to be neutral (WP:RNEUTRAL). They do not get deleted because editors think the praise/criticism in them is misplaced (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). This is a well known and widely quoted phrase from a well known scientist, it is a completely appropriate redirect. No one here has shown that this phrase is used anywhere outside of quoting Feynman, so it is no one has actually demonstrated that it is ambiguous. And no, coming up with lists of other "remarkable formulas" isn't what I'm referring to, I'm looking for instances where people have referred to another formula with the exact phrase "The most remarkable formula in mathematics" and demonstrating that such uses are numerous enough that there is a good chance that readers are searching for something other than the Feynman quote. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that "readers should be able to find content they are looking for". And as mentioned by Trovatore below, they can already do so without this redirect, just by typing the phrase in the search box like this: [6] PatrickR2 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the redirect were deleted, then searches would still find the Feynman quote in the Euler's formula article, probably at or near the top, correct? That seems an adequate solution for people looking for the phrase, without the ambiguity/POV problems identified with the redirect. (There should be no internal links to this redirect, I think.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the second one, abstain on the first one. "The Most Remarkable Formula In The World" is substantially different from Feynman's quote. -Apocheir (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first, since it represents a Feynman quote. However, delete the second since it mis-represents him (mathematics =/= world) NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 There seems to be an author who calls Euler–Maclaurin formula "one of the most remarkable formulas of mathematics".^[1] --SilverMatsu (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: too ambiguous and biased. The fact one or two author(s) have called this formula this way does not mean such a redirect should be created for it. Veverve (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's impossible to measure how "remarkable" a math equation is, so it's not a matter for redirects. In my opinion, the quadratic equation is the most unremarkable equation but we don't have The Least Remarkable Equation in Mathematics redirecting to it. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.