Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2019.

Writing as Jessica Beck[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #8: these redirects are all pen names for Tim Myers. However, the phrase "Writing as Jessica Beck" etc. does not appear to have any special significance to the subject. The articles were originally created as a fork of the target, specifically covering works written under each pen name, and were redirected by another editor. signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and housekeeping. Pseudonym redirects don't start with "Writing as". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 1 September 2019 (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.

Svetosavlje[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#Svetosavlje

Université de Birjand[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A French name for an Iranian university that doesn't mention France or French in the article should be deleted per WP:FORRED. It appears this article was originally written as an article draft in French, but as it was unsourced I don't think it is useful history or worth moving to frWiki. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the person who redirected the page, in lieu of nominating for deletion, I have no objection to the deletion, and thank Rosguill for the link to WP:FORRED, of which I was previously unaware. MarginalCost (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2019 (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.

Waterloo Station[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently is redirecting to London Waterloo station while the largest railway station, not the primary topic. There is also a television program of the same name that had multiple articles incorrectly pointing here. Propose redirecting to the disambiguation page. Z5split (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2019 (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.

Template:WSSProposalArchive[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Part of an incomplete move. It should have been deleted at the first place. Magioladitis (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Her Pegship (really?) 19:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect will probably never be ambiguous or refer to anything else, leaving it helpful and harmless. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:15, 31 August 2019 (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.

Nedeia River (Garbovul)[edit]

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. Participants of this discussion have done their due diligence and could not find any reliable source talking about this tributary. Deryck C. 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was quite an intense barrage of wiki jargon. Even I, with more than 8000 edits, could barely understand what you just said. Geolodus (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. If this stream exists, it should be on this detailed hiking map, but all I can find is a summit "Vf. Nedeilor" (elevation 1619 m) southwest of the village Câmpu lui Neag. There is no tributary of the stream Gârbov (right tributary of the Jiul de Vest) named "Nedeia" on this map. Markussep Talk 12:59, 13 September 2019 (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.

Nedeia River[edit]

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 restore and retarget.. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in target list article of why these redirects point here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2019 (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.

Negovanu River (Bosorogu)[edit]

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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If this stream exists, it should be on this detailed hiking map, but all I can find is a summit "Negovanu" (elevation 1936 m) north of the peak Șureanu. There is no tributary of the stream Boșorog named "Negovanu" on this map. Markussep Talk 12:49, 13 September 2019 (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.

Neagu River (Sebes)[edit]

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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target articles of why the first 2 redirects point there. The 3rd target article is an anthroponymy article. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2019 (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.

Mânza River[edit]

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) 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I found two streams named Mânza on a detailed hiking map (spelled "Mînza"): they are two parallel right tributaries of the same river Iapa, one 2 km west of the other, west of the village Negulești. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is an error on the map, it doesn't make sense to give the same name to two streams so close to each other, and this local website only mentions one stream "Manza". Apart from this website and Wikipedia and clones, I have found no mention of these streams. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 12:37, 13 September 2019 (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.

Mocirlele River (Sugag)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Mocirlele River (Sugag)

Moraru River (Plostina)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Moraru River (Plostina)

Moara Dracului River (Hogea)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Moara Dracului River (Hogea)

Moara Dracului River (Falcau)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Moara Dracului River (Falcau)

C16H19N2O9S2[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C16H19N2O9S2 was created by mistake: formula of Glucobrassicin is …H20… not …H19…. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C16H19N2O9S2. I propose to delete it. (C16H20N2O9S2 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. C16H19N2O9S2 is the correct chemical formula for the anion of glucobrassicin (the physiologically relevant form), which is also sometimes referred to as glucobrassicin. See ChemSpider 20137088, for example. Therefore, I think this is just as plausible a search term as C16H20N2O9S2. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's OK but I am a simple reader not a chemist... I'm looking for C16H19N2O9S2, I'm docking at Glucobrassicin and don't understand how I got here. I can't find ...H19... in the article. Gyimhu (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:10, 31 August 2019 (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.

Forms of Digivolution[edit]

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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - target describes "digivolution", but not different forms of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "Mega" and "Ultra" mentioned at the section forms of Digivolution? --BDD (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2019 (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.

Rukoru[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably these are the names of gadgets that appeared in this film. I wouldn't know, because it's not mentioned in the target. Note that a fair amount (possibly all?) of these terms are Hepburn transliterations of Japanese verbs. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, they're not mentioned in the article, making the usefulness of a redirect questionable. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added these characters are clarification with actors that were not known yet. So everyone is running smoothly. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
clarification for anyone confused by what the above meant: SpinnerLaserz has added mentions of the redirect terms, listed as characters with "unknown cast" in the cast section. I would still dispute the usefulness of the redirect, as there is no real information about the terms at the target. It is not necessary to map a redirect from every minor character to a work of fiction. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added "unknown cast" (as blank) is because the names of the actors are not mentioned (it's not just this film, any other works have characters those actors are unknown), minor characters are supporting characters too. It is actually necessary to redirect a minor character, if you take a look at Colin Creevey (he is a minor characters from the Harry Potter series and he does have redirects to Dumbledore's Army). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:07, 31 August 2019 (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.

Grado Empire(Fire Emblem)[edit]

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 move the first without leaving a redirect, no consensus on the others. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 31 August 2019 (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.

Affinity (Fire Emblem)[edit]

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. I'll point this to the section where it's mentioned. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecruft concept not mentioned in target article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist given the new addition to the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 31 August 2019 (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.

Sigma personality[edit]

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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually really hard to sort through all the various personality type pseudoscience floating around online to find anything resembling a "reliable source", but generally alpha wolf/alpha versus lone wolf/sigma are used fairly interchangeably.[2] I'll add a mention in the target article. -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've heard the term floating around on the internet. What ultimately pushed me to make the decision to nominate was that we don't even have Alpha personality. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, and yet we do have Beta male (slang), which could reasonably be a target for beta personality. Even for pseudo-science, the topic as a whole isn't being approached with much rigor as things currently stand around here considering it's a theory everyone has at least heard of. Linking the topics together was as far as I got with it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alpha personality would go to Alpha (ethology). But back to the original sigma term, I don't see any reliable sources that use this term, only unreliable blogs. Books that have the word "sigma" and "lone wolf" refer to six sigma in business or fraternities that might have sigma in their names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Mentioned in the article now, albeit with a tag. This feels like one of those cart-before-horse situations where we really need to first determine whether we want the content in the article. If it's there, the redirect is obviously helpful; if it's not, the redirect is probably confusing. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 31 August 2019 (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.

Template:WPHawaii/sandbox[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It should have been moved and deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 31 August 2019 (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.

Lakshmi (Buddhism)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Lakshmi (Buddhism)

He Never Dies[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not similar enough to the target term to be useful, could potentially cause confusion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea Pig 3: He Never Dies is an alternate title of the film, and I can find no evidence of any other films or notable subjects called He Never Dies. The closest thing I can find to that would be the 2015 film He Never Died. Since that's the case, I'm going to add a hatnote to the Guinea Pig article, stating that "He Never Dies" redirects there, and that it's not to be confused with He Never Died. That should clear up potential confusion. –Matthew - (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:03, 31 August 2019 (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.

House of Swabia[edit]

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 Hohenstaufen. –Darkwind (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. The redirect suggests a noble family, but the target is on a former duchy ruled over by multiple families, none of which are referred to as the House of Swabia.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hohenstaufen per this. Are you suggesting deletion? (Is it just assumed that RFD means redirects for deletion?) Srnec (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Srnec, the page is, in fact, called "redirects for discussion". Eman235/talk 01:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know. But I find it odd that no suggestion as to what be done is routinely put forward by nominators. Is it taken as granted that absent an explicit suggestion, the nominator is asking for deletion? I've been around since this was actually called Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but I rarely participate here. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's accurate. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Srnec: I disagree with that proposal, if based solely on that link. Those are just the results of an internal search engine, with the only result being a section about a famous member of the House of Hohenstaufen who happened to be a Duke of Swabia. My default position is "delete if no better alternative can be found".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every Duke of Swabia for 200 years was a Hohenstaufen. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I believe the nominator is correct that there is no "House of Swabia". I don't understand Britannica's organization well enough to really know what's going on here. I don't know if the "directory page" suggests an intent to create an article. But they don't use the phrase anywhere. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search for "House of Swabia" returns many hits, mostly from older works. It should point to Hohenstaufen, the general meaning. It's a not unreasonable search term. The Hohenstaufen are strongly associated with Swabia. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Hohenstaufen. Spurious uses still top the Google results, but there are some from older books that use the term in the way Srnec has argued for. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (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.

Square root of 1[edit]

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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect. No one looking for the article on the number 1 itself would be searching for this, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTCALCULATOR. (Yeah, I know this doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Geez, articles like Square root of 2 exist? Never mind then. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Root of unity what a reader might be looking for? – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, possibly, but I guess I was looking at this along the lines of the actual articles at Square root of 2, Square root of 3, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to a non-mathematician like me, it's not at all obvious that Root of unity should be titled the way it is. If I were looking for this topic, I'd probably search using something like Root of 1, Roots of 1, Root of one, or Roots of one, none of which exist as redirects. Do you think I could create them? – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Retargeting to Roots of unity is definitely a possibility, though I've never seen "roots of 1" and "roots of unity" interchanged, so I'm not sure how useful this would be. I don't think the current redirect is very helpful either; there is nothing remarkable about the square root of 1 labeled as such (note also that square root of 9, etc., don't exist, for the same reason of being unnecessary), and one could even argue that it would impede a search for Roots of unity if left as is. Regarding other possible redirects, the intuitive Nth roots of unity already exists, so I don't see a strong need for these other redirects to be created. ComplexRational (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (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.

Paraul Varului[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Paraul Varului

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_31&oldid=1148110807"