File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
: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
. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Not a useful alias name, nor a misspelling or a misnomer. The only use I have ever seen was like "Reverse Polish notation, also known as Lukasiewicz notation, sometimes called Zciweisakul notation" – it's always 'also' or 'sometimes'. As such it's just a joke on the name and not an actual alternative name. Hence not probable target of any search. CiaPan (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It is known elsewhere: see :sr:Обрнута пољска нотација. It came up on Quora: https://www.quora.com/search?q=Zciweisakul. It may be "depths of Wikipedia", but I don't see the case has been made for deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
::Comment: I'm usually not impressed by arguments in the form "no one is going to search for this" (tacitly, "and if they do they shouldn't"). In my view they are based on a fallacy, or at least an overestimation of what anyone can know about what anyone else or code they write might be looking for. I don't approve of WP promoting neologisms, but this mathematical joke isn't new and is funny (especially the Polish grammar point about the -a genitive inflection which I didn't know). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Redirects for this neologism/proposed name are premature. {{tq|"Zciweisakuł+notation"}} has only 3 results on Google; the first is Wikipedia, the second explicitly says {{tq|aren't you glad it's not called Zciweisakuł Notation}} (emphasis mine), and the third is Quora. There are two pages of results for the term without the "ł", and they are similar in nature; some are Wikipedia and its clones/mirrors, and the others are people noting that it's not called that (with varied opinions; some expressing relief or opining that it's for the best because they wouldn't know how to pronounce it, others saying it "should" be called that, again implying it's not already called that). That Quora link given above by Charles Matthews says {{tq|but it probably should be called “Zciweisakul notation“}}, which also affirms that it's not actually already known by that term (yet).
:According to the Polish-langauge Wikipedia, Jan Łukasiewicz apparently did suggest the name "notacja azciweisakuł" (the latter being Łukasiewicza backwards), and the Polish-language Wikipedia renders that as "Azciweisakul notation" in English, but these redirects lack the "a". This information on the Polish-language Wikipedia is unreferenced. Azciweisakuł notation and Azciweisakul notation don't exist; the former gets 2 Google results and the latter gets 43. I assume some people have taken Łukasiewicz's suggestion and combined it with the English term "Łukasiewicz notation" to derive the terms without the a-; however, it's conceivable that they also came up with it independently. Regardless, the target of these redirects does not mention this term in any form (a/z, ł/l). – Scyrme (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:: Regarding the Serbian-language Wikipedia linked above by Charles Matthews, it's similar to the Polish-language article in that the information given is unreferenced, except it only mentions "Zciweisakul нотација" as a proposed name with mentioning who proposed it. Looking back through the history, I think it actually originated on the English-language Wikipedia back in March 2006, and was copied in translation; this would explain the unusual mixed script name. The term hasn't been on the English-language article for over a decade, but remains as a vestige in the translated article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is a known misnomer used by some people. Therefore we have the redirect to direct users entering this string into the search box to the relevant contents in our encyclopedia as is our normal procedure for such misnomers. It is perfectly in line with the purposes for why we have redirects per our relevant guideline WP:REDIR. None of the valid deletion reasons stated there apply, but two of the reasons to keep apply per WP:R#KEEP. Therefore, obvious keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- :I'd argue point 8 of WP:R#DELETE applies (and have effectively already done so above). Regarding {{tq|used by some people}}, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it is used by anyone. The closest thing to evidence are statements by a handful of people who think it should be used, but those same people also acknowledge that it is not already used (as I noted above). – Scyrme (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- :Can you, please, cite any example of actual use of the phrase as a separate name by itself, not just in a comment to the most widely used 'Reverse Polish notation' or 'Lukasiewicz notation'? --CiaPan (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Notifying {{u|Matthiaspaul}}. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: This is not a misnomer. I cannot find a mention of this that does not in the very same place mention RPN, including the quora posts. TartarTorte 20:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Scyrme. This is not a reasonable search term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the explanations provided by Scyrme, and also {{tq|neologism/proposed name is premature}}. We don't have to formalize a term because some people talked about it in a thread on Quora. Jay 💬 12:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.