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 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) → 2026 FIFA World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too early for this. Can be created when information is known. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, and according to this, qualification will not begin until 2023. GiantSnowman 21:18, 28 March 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) 06:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rotten → Template:Rotten Tomatoes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Make disambiguation page for Template:Rotten Tomatoes (move discussion in progress), Template: Rotten Tomatoes data, and Template: RT prose Indagate (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and skip making it a disambiguation page, in my opinion. We don't need it to be a link to anything since "Rotten" by itself is not clearly connected with the review aggregator. Only 31 articles appear to use it, and they can be updated to use a more descriptive template name. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Erik after replacing usages. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete. I agree with Erik that "Rotten" per se is not specific enough to Rotten Tomatoes to warrant a disambiguation page.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 18:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I've just replaced the existing 32 transclusions of this redirect [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 20 April 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Salsa sauce → Salsa (Mexican cuisine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Salsa is never called "salsa sauce"; page was redirected in 2013, but it doesn't feel like a useful redirect since this term is never used to describe salsa. Delete or keep? Colgatepony234 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible misspelling, unambiguous. Salsa is a sauce, and duplications like this happen, see PIN number. Paradoctor (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Also, another example of a redundant term is NIC card. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep However much of a linguistic (and culinary?) travesty it may be, salsa is absolutely referred to as "salsa sauce". Here's the recipe for one such "sauce".—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 18:36, 28 March 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Snake Island massacre → Attack on Snake Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither Ukraine nor Russia appear to be claiming any deaths during the attack on the island at this point, so "Snake Island Massacre" seems to be an inappropriate redirect. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even though no deaths occurred during the attack, the initial thought was they did die, which triggered international attention and other events like Russian warship, go fuck yourself. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Ukraine president says some Ukrainian sailors died on Snake Island" --Renat 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I find the preceding rationales insufficient to justify keeping. A title like this would not be justified simply by the confusion as to deaths, as you don't get from "people died" straight to "massacre". However, there is usage of this exact phrase, including by The Sun, which, while trashy and unreliable, is a good indicator of plausible usage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) the name does appear in some news sources, and 2) the rationale is faulty because Ukraine does claim deaths (Zelenskyy yesterday: “Some of them died”).[2] —Michael Z. 17:59, 28 March 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 keep. Withdrawn in favor of the new template, although the new template page should probably get a doc page at some point (which I'm probably not good enough at templates to do). Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Original research span → Template:Original research inline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target template does not do what the other "span" templates such as ((citation needed span)) or ((failed verification span)) do. Since the target template apparently doesn't have the span functionality (I've tried), this shouldn't redirect here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hog Farm and Veverve: I've drafted a template based on ((citation needed span)) and ((failed verification span)) below the redirect, since it seems it may be useful. What do you think? (If it's kept then I can also add a documentation page based on those two.) eviolite (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal of turning this misleading redirect into a non-misleading template. Veverve (talk) 18:12, 27 March 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 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Management services organization → Medical outsourcing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Management Services Organization → Outsourcing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term, capitalised or not, does not occur at Outsourcing and may be ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom., very ambiguous. Veverve (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inappropriate redirects. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 1 April 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 Osteopathy. Jay (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Osteopathic medicine → Osteopathic medicine in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this target Osteopathy? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom.: seem obvious to me. Veverve (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Paradoctor (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 30 March 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 procedural close due to sockpuppetry. Any editor in good standing may renominate these pages if they wish. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nationalist (Northern Ireland) → Irish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Northern Irish nationalism → Ulster nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nationalism (Northern Ireland) → Irish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Northern Irish nationalist → Irish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Disambiguate Northern Irish nationalism between Irish and Ulster nationalisms, the term is clearly ambiguous. And retarget Nationalist (Northern Ireland) to this disambiguation page. Olchug (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rationale is unclear. The Banner talk 19:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The rationale is the term is clearly ambiguous. How is this unclear? Jay (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He is mixing things up that are separate entities and not identical. The Banner talk 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Banner which entities are separate and not identical? nationalism and nationalist? Olchug (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Northern Irish nationalism to Irish nationalism and keep Nationalist (Northern Ireland). Nationalism in Northern Ireland is a subset of Irish nationalism. I created Nationalism (Northern Ireland) and Northern Irish nationalist targeting Irish nationalism too. Schleiz (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK eviolite (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note also that the User:Mr Taz who redirected Northern Irish nationalism to Ulster nationalism has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. --Schleiz (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK eviolite (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundling Nationalism (Northern Ireland) and Northern Irish nationalist. --Olchug (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this edit the nomination is fundamentally changed. And with this proposal, nominator even changed his own proposal. So this nomination should be closed and a new request filed. The Banner talk 08:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How has it fundamentally changed? Jay (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did not notice the original nomination? The Banner talk 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did. Which is why I asked the question. Jay (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeing as this discussion was largely socks talking to each other, would a procedural close be in order? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 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 with no prejudice to a move discussion being opened for Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukrainian Orthodox Church → History of Christianity in Ukraine#Eastern Orthodox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [3] @Veverve: Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Makes sense. Mikalra (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: Is there a reason this shouldn't be closed as retarget (or, rather, that the DAB page shouldn't be moved to this title per WP:DABNAME)? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to see more than one participant in a deletion discussion besides the nominator. I've closed deletion discussions that only had one but I prefer to see more participants before choosing whether or not to delete a page. Other closers might have different opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The situation is fine as it is. The current target details the 2 most obvious meanings and has a hatnote to the disambiguation page which lists the others (and more besides, but that's a different problem). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) to Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Jay (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Dab page as Jay said Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:10, 29 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Elder Llywelyn → Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Llywelyn the elder → Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd was the elder of two brothers called Llywelyn, but the only instances of these two terms (both of which have previously been titles of this article) seem to be in running text where a sentence needs to specify which of two Llywelyns is being referred to, e.g. here for "elder Llywelyn" and here for "Llywelyn the elder". The first example refers to these brothers, but the second refers to Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, so the redirect target is not the only possible "elder Llywelyn". (In fact, the first page of Google Books results for "elder Llywelyn" is mostly made up of references to Llywelyn the Great, not Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd.) Ham II (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per nom. Multiple sources use these terms to describe people so they are plausible search terms, that they are used for multiple people means we need to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: That was actually meant to be an argument for deleting the redirects; sorry for not being clear. Llywelyn (disambiguation) doesn't cover any of the aforementioned people (rather counterintuitively) so the closest thing would be Llywelyn § Personal names: historical. That currently mentions Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd but not his younger brother. Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd do appear there, and I suppose the order of seniority is clear because their dates are given, but it's not as if either of these terms is used as a proper name. Ham II (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you intended deletion, but your argument makes it clear that these names should be disambiguated somewhere. Whether that is Llywelyn (disambiguation) or a specific one at either of the titles nominated is less important, but if there is a good reason why they aren't covered at the existing page then it would seem best to create a new one. Disambiguation guarantees that people can find who they are looking for by giving appropriate context, search results (which may be several clicks/taps away depending on device, search method and account type) by contrast are not guaranteed and even if the relevant articles do appear there is no guarantee that the provided context will enable readers to reliably pick the correct article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think someone's going to read "Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had been a much more mighty ruler than his grandson. But yet he had never obtained, had hardly ever aspired to, so formal a position in the feudal hierarchy. The elder Llywelyn had generally been content to style himself 'Prince of North Wales.'" (a string of text which appears in a lot of the Google Books results) and fail to realise that the "elder Llywelyn" is the person referred to earlier as Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. It's only in contexts like this that these phrases are used. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added 'Elder Llywelyn' which was changed to 'Llywelyn the Elder', but both redirects are unnecessary as Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd would be the correct naming for the article. There is confusion as to who is who here, Llywelyn Fawr existed in the history books, and the name has since been adopted by 'Llywelyn the Great' as the literal translation, however 'Llywelyn Gwych' would be 'great' in a literal sense of the word. But to reiterate, both Elder Llywelyn & Llywelyn the elder article searches which are now redirect pages, they should both be deleted. Also, the original naming of the article Llywelyn the Elder ap Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd is unnecessarily long and the original article name which was the cause the redirects, that too should be deleted as it is a confusing name which blends both English and Welsh incorrectly, Llywelyn's name was Llywelyn Fawr (the elder is an English translation). Again, I would like to bring up the case of Llywelyn the Great using Llywelyn Fawr's name incorrectly as that should be amended too, they are 2 different people who's names have been lost in translation over centuries and that should be stated through the redirect search engine, instead of having Llywelyn the Great borrowing 'Fawr' in his article search, the name should be redirected to Llywelyn Fawr who with referenced searches held the naming in the 13th century. Please see Talk:Llywelyn the Great#Llywelyn 'Fawr'? for sourced information regarding the argument. Cltjames (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cltjames: If you really want to resolve the issue of the Llywelyn Fawr redirect (and I think its current target is correct), I'd guess that the best thing to do would be to start a formal RfC at Talk:Llywelyn the Great – a step up from your existing talk page section there. If you do, please ping me in as I might not be watching. I'd continue to argue that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth/Llywelyn Fawr/Llywelyn the Great (all the same person) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. Elder Llywelyn was created by Cltjames, and Llywelyn the elder was created by Serial Number 54129. The former was the page's title for less than a day, and the latter was the page's title for about a month. I'm going with the different talk page conversations that seem to imply that these redirect titles are not actual terms, but helpful (short) titles that were used only within enwiki to distinguish the subject from Llywelyn the Great. And now they realize that the redirect titles are misnomers. Jay (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: I realise nothing of the sort, and your mind reading is, of course, wrong, as well as an implicit exercise in bad faith. Cheers! SN54129 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The talk page discussions participants who are in consensus would be Cltjames and Ham II. My reading of your comment at Talk:Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd: The only redirect that's actually important here, to me, is that Llwelyn Fawr and the Great are shown as being the same individual; which did not mention about the Elder redirects, was that you are either fine with their suggestions, or had no opinion on the Elder redirects. I may have misunderstood your usage of smileys. You may want to rephrase what you meant there. Jay (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Realize" is an extremely :loaded word. SN54129 22:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suspect that these article titles would never have been chosen for Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd if the Dictionary of Welsh Biography's entry for him and his brother weren't titled "LLYWELYN FAWR and LLYWELYN FYCHAN (fl. early 13th century)", without the patronymic which appears in other sources. The option of titling that article Llywelyn Fawr has always been unavailable, because it's a redirect to Llywelyn the Great – as it should be, though Cltjames above thinks otherwise. So the article title has gone from the prolix Llywelyn the Elder ap Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd to Elder Llywelyn, which was explicitly intended as a translation of "Llywelyn Fawr" and which (as already noted) survived for less than a day before it was changed to Llywelyn the elder, a variation on the same theme. Neither of the last two appear in sources as proper names, only as a kind of elegant variation, so I don't belive they're plausible search terms. Ham II (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - it seems that there are a fair amount of problems with figuring out proper referents for these terms. In the absence of a clear and compelling disambiguation proposal that addresses the issues in contention, deletion to allow for search results seems like the only short-term solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 17 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another Wiktionary redirect from Neel.arunabh that targets an empty Wiktionary page. The current target here is completely inadequate containing only the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to add a definition. Unless a proper definition is added this should be retargeted to something local or deleted 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Neel.arunabh has added the useless definition (mathematics) inverted lazy s, which is identical to the description. That helps no one and does not change my position that the redirect should be deleted unless a local target is identified. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to negation, keep as second option, retarget to Mathematical Operators (Unicode block) as third. In all cases, tag as ((r from Unicode)). I encountered ∾ while reading "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I" (Gödel's text, not the Wikipedia article), where it denotes negation. This redirect does no harm, is useful for readers like me, and deleting it would not improve things. All targets give the reader some information about the symbol. Paradoctor (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, but I think that use would typically be rendered in Unicode as Tilde#As a unary operator. eviolite (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "rendered" Some people write A for Α because it's convenient. Still not the same letter. I'll wait for evidence that Hilbert's use of the inverted lazy S for negation was merely for want of a tilde glyph in his typesetters toolbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this can be closed as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS now. Paradoctor (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) 22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to reveal search results, where the link to Wiktionary will be on the right hand side with "Results from sister projects". Another use for the inverted lazy S not yet mentioned is in combination with L, as described in that article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 17 April 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.