Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2023.

Elijah Green

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Elijah Green

Fat upper pussy area

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Fat upper pussy area

SS Wakakura

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 (
G7). Deleted by Explicit per author's request. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 13:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to the use of double apostrophes that has been blacklisted in the creation of new titles for almost a decade. (The use of 2+ consecutive apostrophes has the potential to cause wiki markup issues if linked on pages, thus the reason why the title blacklist entry was created.) However, at the present time, the title without the apostrophes,

SS Wakakura, does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Hi - as the guilty party creating the title can it be changed/corrected. What I had intended was a redirect from SS Wakakura to HMNZS Wakakura. The ship was originally part of the New Zealand Navy and after WW2 sold, becoming a merchant vessal. NealeWellington (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    G7 speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Completed - you can now Speedy Delete this redirect. NealeWellington (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually you should do that yourself but alright. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Our Lady of Arabia Cathedral.

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 23:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term when the period is included.

Our Lady of Arabia Cathedral also already exists as a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Hiram Wesley Evans and travel at your own risk

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 23:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, implausible search term, my own Google search has not turned up connections ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any connection between this phrase and a leader of the KKK either, so delete unless the creator can justify this redirect. Glades12 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to
    WP:XY. Duckmather (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Zolotoe Sechenie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 10#Zolotoe Sechenie

Marcus Chi

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 soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Apparently autobiographical redirect created by User:Marcus Daniel Yuri Chi, no mention in target article ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

WP:NOTCHANGELOG

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. No prejudice against a new discussion in case the targeted section is significantly altered or removed. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect title does not match what the target actually says, which says to avoid exhaustive change logs, but does not say they are entirely disallowed. Either delete and salt against recreation, or move to WP:NOTEXHAUSTIVECHANGELOG which will hopefully drive the point home that some change logs are acceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and Delete / Salt Against Recreation - This shorthand has caused immense controversy and confusion amongst Wikipedia editors, and has opened the doors wide open for the policy & shorthand to be massively misinterpreted to indicate that all changelogs are banned on the platform, despite the fact that they are not, and has resulted in articles being unnecesarily deleted by a small fraction of editors who disagree with their inclusion in Wikipedia. -
    leave a message · contributions) 14:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:BLUDGEON. Hate to be blunt, but you need to read it. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Why are you saying this to them? They've made one single comment here. Huggums537 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I hate the Chrome/Firefox tables, and have wanted them deleted for months. The problem is AfD editors thinking that any material about software versions that (a) lacks inline secondary citations, or (b) is excessively detailed, must be immediately AfD'd and deleted, instead of following
    WP:PRESERVE (policy) and improving these articles by trimming details and adding citations. Moving to NOTEXHAUSTIVECHANGELOG is unlikely to help, it would be more effective to simply clarify NOTCHANGELOG so it doesn't get misused at AfDs. — DFlhb (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC) edited; I doubt moving would help; clarifying the policy is the way to go 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep / Oppose deletion: I understand the concern here, but I also think it's not all that common for redirects to use a slightly misleading name in the interest of brevity. (To take a nearby example,
    WP:NOTSTATS.) And WP:NOTEXHAUSTIVECHANGELOG is ... really long. (NOTEXCHANGELONG, maybe?) Also, while the redirect might create some confusion among new editors ... I'm skeptical that it has much of an impact. This policy comes up in deletion discussions, and, presumably a closer would know enough to read the policy and not merely rely on the redirect (and, accordingly, discount any !votes that do so rely). (Of course, there's currently an RFC on whether the policy itself should be removed—I do think it's relevant that I've opposed removal, while Locke Cole and Evelyn Marie have both said the policy should be scrapped.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - NOTCHANGELOG needs to be expanded and clarified, a move would be counterproductive. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose salting. While I’m not sure whether to delete or not and move or not (the proposed new name works but it’s also too long), salting is not needed yet, as there’s no basis that the page will be repeatedly recreated. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - longstanding redirect to a relevant policy subsection. If the policy is changed, and if the change no longer supports having this as a shortcut, then post a discussion on what to do with the shortcut. Most likely due to extensive use it will need to be retargeted to some kind of explanation about why the policy was deprecated, not deleted outright. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if the nominator believes that WP:NOTEXHAUSTIVECHANGELOG will be a useful shortcut, nothing is stopping them from creating it. Moving redirects is fairly pointless, not just because when you move a redirect, a {{R from move}} redirect is left behind anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also also, this is a discussion about the redirect shortcut. Don't make comments here about what to do with the policy: this is
    not a general discussion forum. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Many shortcuts into WP:NOT are shortened to be easy to remember and read but the policy page does not say we disallow all types implied. Eg NOTNEWS says we can cover current ears and news, but we are nit a newspaper and should be careful. Redirect names should not be read in plain text as exactly what they say, and instead to be understood with all the caveats at NOT. --Masem (t) 16:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is NOTNEWS being used in deletion discussions as saying no articles about news events should be allowed? Because NOTCHANGELOG is being used that way, incorrectly, and it seems like some editors are just reading the shortcut and taking it at face value. If the reason we moved
    WP:AFD and took "deletion" out of the name and swapped it for "discussion" was to really try to foster discussions over votes, it seems like these redirects are just another obstacle towards really talking with editors instead of trying to talk over other editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. Part of a
    WP:POINTy backdoor attempt to hang on to exhaustive listings of every minor edit and bugfix to pieces of software, by eradicating all guidelines saying why they're such a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nothing pointy here David, maybe
    WP:AGF? The argument I see at the RFC is that no change is necessary because it only forbids "exhaustive" change logs, but the redirect is being used without any thought to what the policy actually says. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose no changelog pages are acceptable because they are not encyclopedic content and go against the five pillars of Wikipedia.'. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally not what
    WP:NOTCHANGELOG says, I'm glad you're here to serve as an example of why this should be changed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy close - more forum shopping. It's quite annoying that this discussion is spilling out across multiple pages instead of centralized at the RFC that's still ongoing. This RFD's outcome is clearly tied to the outcome of the RFC. If the RFC determines to remove or rescope the policy, then a change in the redirect is only natural. This RFD is putting the cart before the horse at best. If no uninvolved admin is willing to speedy close this blatant forum shopping, then I support keeping the current redirect and oppose any renaming. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way this RfD's outcome is tied to that RfC is if that RfC succeeds this RfD won't be valid anymore as the relevant section is gone. This is NOT about removing that section, this is about taking action on a misleading redirect name. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect Ivan is right on the money here. This is a POINTy nom that is trying to do an end-run around discussions on VPP about the changelog language. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is over there. I'm not proposing changing the text at NOTCHANGELOG, simply making the redirect name more accurate. Right now, it seems like editors are referencing it without making any effort to read what the target of this redirect actually says. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: It's a useful redirect to a relevant bit of policy. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So? It's a shortcut: being fully descriptive is not the purpose of shortcuts. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It redirects to a section that says, among other things, "Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use
    Guy Harris (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep It's a useful shortcut; a shortcut is not a policy statement. The proposal to delete is based on the idea that the shortcut doesn't fully encapsulate the policy? That seems like an unreasonable burden to place on a shortcut. --Jayron32 19:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Changelog implies exhaustivity anyway. J947 † edits 19:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Delete: This thing is constantly misquoted because people only read the shortcut name. I still agree that WP:NOTEXHAUSTIVECHANGELOG is too long, we should find something shorter like WP:NOTC or so. Qxyz123 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If "changelogs" refers to "exhaustive logs of software updates", then the "CHANGELOG" part of the shortcut name is accurate; the issue is what "NOT" means - does it mean "all such articles should be deleted", does it mean "all such articles should be changed to be something other than just an exhaustive log", or does it mean "articles shouldn't do that, however that happens"?
    Guy Harris (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Qxyz123, do you mean "move or delete"? I am not sure I see the point in moving a page just for it to be deleted a moment later. HouseBlastertalk 22:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means move without redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a slightly bizarre take. A shortcut is allowed to omit (for brevity) qualifications for the criteria when a policy or guideline should be enforced. This discussion is going about it backwards. The RfC should close before the shortcut is to be discussed. (And even then, the consensus from the policy under discussion will have a fairly clear course of action on what to do with related shortcuts.) It's wrong to claim that the shortcut has led to a misunderstanding of policy. A disagreement on what counts as a changelog is what is happening and is different. Wanting to clarify the policy is what should be done instead of nominating its redirect. It's also a longstanding redirect, with which a deletion would be disruptive to historical discussions. If the policy is removed, then a deletion discussion would occur. It should not be just nominated for deleted when the policy is still in place. SWinxy (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved at the RfC, !voted keep but clarify) Keep. One, this should have waited for the end of
    WP:SEAOFBLUE in this comment, but I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to click on the link and see what it leads to. HouseBlastertalk 22:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Shortcuts are for convenience and ease of use, and the text of the shortcut is not the actual policy, or essay, or whatever the target is. -- Whpq (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The actual policy should not be weakened, and deletion of a handy shortcut to it would probably weaken the concept. "Weak" because there is an argument for delete. Which is that people might be wrongly using/quoting the metaphor/shortcut as being a summary of the policy instead of the actual policy. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The redirect is referenced 250+ times (fewer than I expected, actually), so in my opinion we would need a good reason to deprecate it. I agree with others here that the confusion is not created primarily by the title of the redirect, so changing its name won't resolve the issue. Suriname0 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:BLUDGEON. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Replying without repeating the same arguments is not bludgeoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the policy paragraph. However the correct procedure will be to remove the policy section first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graeme Bartlett If I'm interpreting this correctly, this RfD rests on the assumption that the relevant section will not be deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I am supporting deletion of the section and redirect, but if the section is not deleted, we should retain the redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    but if the section is not deleted, we should retain the redirect ... So, you're a "keep" in terms of the redirect, right? I mean, if the section is deleted, won't the redirect ... obviously also be deleted?--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the policy paragraph exists - and the RfC to remove it does not appear to obtain consensus - this redirect is helpful to refer to it. It is inappropriate to attempt to change policy through the back door by attempting to delete a shortcut instead of the policy it refers to. Sandstein 07:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfD is not an attempt to change policy, it was created because of its misleading title, as some like 1keyhole misinterpret it to mean all software history should be removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move and Delete/Salt': because it needs to be clarified and the emerging consensus at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC_on_removing_WP:NOTCHANGELOG_policy seems to support that so I'm rather shocked more people are not supporting a move here. Obviously, there appears to be much disagreement about exactly what clarification is needed. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Huggums537 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this consensus that it needs to be changed? Why would we need to salt it? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the difference between "consensus", and "*emerging* consensus". Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is emerging, it is taking its damn time. At the moment of your vote in the said discussion, the discussion was 6 people supporting the removal of the section, 47 opposed to removing, and a small number (2-3) who had some other perspective on the matter that made it hard for me to assess. Indeed, your vote was the first supporting removal in the prior dozen or so votes. If consensus is going to emerge to remove the section, it had better get started damn quick, because it hasn't emerged yet. --Jayron32 17:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your argument has convinced me about salting. There may be valid reasons for recreating in the future that we are not aware of today, and salting would be a barrier to that. I'm changing my vote accordingly. Thanks Huggums537 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adding "exhaustive" is wikilawyering-style pedantry, and ultimately pointless. We're never going to capture the nuances of any policy or guidelines in a shortcut. The shorthand is as it stands, useful. CMD (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this redirect. The advice is basically accurate, and certainly summarizes the policy. This risks being pedantic, let alone
WP:WIKILAWYERING to violate the spirit of the policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

???? (Nintendo character)

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 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

BLAR'd article. Very ambiguous and unlikely search term, possibly

freaky
. Quick search for it also brings up a minor enemy from another Mario RPG game, might also have other uses. The character isn't mentioned at the target, but that part is fine since searching for a character's name and getting redirected should still provide information. The term is especially unlikely since the character does have an established name.

Due to being an {{

R from history}} that appears to have been merged and then deleted, deleting shouldn't be an option due to reserving attribution required under copyright. However, moving without redirect to another title should be, whether it's a talk page of some sort or a more plausible title, e.g. Doopliss (Paper Mario). Randi Moth TalkContribs 13:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

All Nepal National Free Students Union (Unified Socialist).

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 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term when you include the period at the end. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians

Alsace(wine)

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 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RDAB due to lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with proper spacing, Alsace (wine), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Redirects to Jim Cummings

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 💬 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous with John Cummings (piper), whose middle name also starts with a J. I'm also seeing no evidence that James has ever gone by "JJ" or "J.J.", and there are people who have gone by "J.J. Cummings", albeit without Wikipedia articles (the entire first page of google results searching "JJ Cummings" in quotations appears to be different people). These two redirects just feel too ambiguous for me to not bring them to RFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Redirects to List of iPhone models

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Redirects to List of iPhone models

Love Kylie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 10#Love Kylie

Garagos

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Garagos

Nonsingular

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 soft retarget to
(non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Inconsistent, and most likely ambiguous. See also Singularity. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Singular, as none of the present target is a primary topic. However, this new target requires to be edited to clarify the relationship with singularity, disambiguating further "singular point", and include Nonsinguar algebraic variety (algebraic variety without singular point). D.Lazard (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that both should be retargeted to Singular. If Singular is divided into sections, it should be retargeted to the "Mathematics" section. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created the Mathematics section. Jay 💬 15:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_3&oldid=1159464598"