Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 11: Difference between revisions

 

Line 159: Line 159:

This doesn’t make much sense to me. [[User:ArthananWarcraft|ArthananWarcraft]] ([[User talk:ArthananWarcraft|talk]]) 16:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This doesn’t make much sense to me. [[User:ArthananWarcraft|ArthananWarcraft]] ([[User talk:ArthananWarcraft|talk]]) 16:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ the creator’s only edit was to make an unsourced personal essay which was then redirected. [[User:Thepharoah17|Thepharoah17]] ([[User talk:Thepharoah17|talk]]) 22:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ the creator’s only edit was to make an unsourced personal essay which was then redirected. [[User:Thepharoah17|Thepharoah17]] ([[User talk:Thepharoah17|talk]]) 22:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete.”’ Useless. Peep the odd history for a chuckle (this can obviously be deleted). —[[User:Myceteae|<span style=”font-family: verdana; color: navy;”><b>Myceteae</b></span>]]<span style=”visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px”>{{zero width joiner}}</span>🍄‍🟫 ([[User talk:Myceteae|<span style=”font-family: verdana;”><i>talk</i></span>]]) 01:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete.”’ Useless. Peep the odd history for a chuckle (this can obviously be deleted). —[[User:Myceteae|<span style=”font-family: verdana; color: navy;”><b>Myceteae</b></span>]]<span style=”visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px”>{{zero width joiner}}</span>🍄‍🟫 ([[User talk:Myceteae|<span style=”font-family: verdana;”><i>talk</i></span>]]) 01:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Retarget”’ to [[Atlanta United FC#Supporters]] as a name for supporters of this club. Searching led to a lot of results that [[Apostrophe#Numbers and symbols|include the apostrophe]]. –[[User:Tavix| <span style=”color:#000080; font-family:georgia”>”’T”’avix</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Tavix|<span style=”color:#000080; font-family:georgia”>talk</span>]])} 02:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

*”’Retarget”’ to [[Atlanta United FC#Supporters]] as a name for supporters of this club. Searching led to a lot of results that [[Apostrophe#Numbers and symbols|include the apostrophe]]. –[[User:Tavix| <span style=”color:#000080; font-family:georgia”>”’T”’avix</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Tavix|<span style=”color:#000080; font-family:georgia”>talk</span>]])} 02:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2025.

It isn’t right that this redirect should point to a disambiguated title. Fort Bragg was first called “Camp Bragg”. The disambiguator at Camp Bragg (Arkansas) would seem to indicate it is not the primary topic, so retarget Camp Bragg to Fort Bragg and put a hatnote there. (If the Arkansas place really is the primary topic, the article about it should be moved to the base name instead). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R from move and unlikely search term, especially as it redirects to simply Ince railway station. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are for a tornado that does not exist. They were likely created as a misreading of the March 1946 Monthly Weather Review, which states this event was a hailstorm on March 26. They originally pointed to a specific date entry, but that entry was removed a while ago once the mistake was realized. 57birdnerd (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete odd mixed case redirect. No incoming links and very little traffic especially in recent years. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

refers to showers with at least one part that looks like a telephone… or so the not many results i got imply. not mentioned, but i guess most non-brazilian showers shown in the article would fit the bill. still, doesn’t seem to be a plausible search term consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why is it that whenever i see a botched move, it’s from anthony appleyard? it seems this matter’s already been settled, so all that’s missing is just deleting this consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possible remnant of a move. Regardless, this is not a proper disambiguation nor is it a plausible search term. For some reason there was a spike in traffic in March but as expected for this bizarre redirect, there are no incoming links and near-zero “all-time” views. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

refers to shower rooms with barriers to entry low enough that one can just walk in. alas, the term is unmentioned, and none of the rooms shown would fit the bill. also existed as an unsourced essay or ad or whatever you want to call it 12 years ago (hey, start feeling old!) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m inclined to keep and add a description. This is a reasonable search term for a common type of shower. A quick web search turns up plenty of hits although I didn’t try to find reliable sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i’m not a gamer torture facility expert, so the best i can say i found was this, which is a guide, and thus not good. i’ll have to leave the finding sources part to someone else, but will mention that the two steps should probably be swapped around consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re right. I guess delete unless suitable content is added. There’s plenty of sources discussing this but I don’t really have the capacity to find a good one with a concise definition. The historical content is of no value and this can always be re-created if someone adds content later. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

definitely an implausible typoof “walk-in shower”, which suggests showers that can be transported around, which would actually be pretty neat. implausibletypo, still, as the average reader would notice the lack of a space or dash before results would have time to suggest stuff related to walking consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. The redirect contains this invisible note: Redirect should be to hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine hydrochloride, but no such article currently exists. I confirmed via DailyMed that this product contains these two active ingredients. We have separate articles for hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone acetate, and pramoxine but no article for the combination drug. Arbitrarily redirecting to one of the active ingredients is incomplete and misleading. The sole use in articles currently is at List of drugs: Em–Ep. Pageviews shows occasional spikes in trafic but virtually none in the past year. Preparation H makes similar products but that article is about the brand, not a specific hydrocortisone acetate–pramoxine product. It would be inappropriate to redirect a different brand’s product to that article. Note: Hydrocortisone is the name and article about the pharmaceutical preparation of the hormone cortisol. Hydrocortisone acetate is a modified form of the drug. No drug trade name should redirect to cortisol so keep is not a valid option. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, making it unclear what this redirect refers to or what content we have about this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at the current target and National Sea Grant College Program contains zero information about the program other than confirming Ohio State is a recipient. Adding meaningful content on the Ohio Sea Grant to either article would be undue—it’s not clear that it is especially notable relative to other research programs at Ohio State nor relative to other Sea Grant recipients. Most of the university’s grants, institutes, and special research programs are unmentioned, appropriately. Most of the coverage I can find is either not independent (from Ohio State or NOAA) or only includes passing mention the Ohio Sea Grant when describing a specific faculty member or research finding without giving a comprehensive overview of the program. The redirect can always be re-created if suitable content is added somewhere. The redirect has only 100 views since its creation in Feb 2018 and no incoming links so it can safely be deleted.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should probably have the same target, although I’m not sure which one would be more appropriate. मल्ल (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @मल्ल: perhaps bundle Hindu view of marriage or do you see that as distinct? That one currently targets Hindu wedding. I would target all to Marriage in Hinduism. While “wedding” and “marriage” can be ambiguous I would send the “marriage” redirects to the “marriage” article unless there is some other qualification. Both articles have hatnotes to the other and weddings are discussed extensively at Marriage in Hinduism. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 ( talk) 23:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Edited. Will update !vote in thread below. 20:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hindu view of marriage seems like it should much more clearly redirect to Marriage in Hinduism, while there is at least some contention at least for the other two. Thanks to your looking into it I agree that all three should target Marriage in Hinduism. I don’t think deleting Hindu Marriage is that necessary per WP:CHEAP but I don’t feel too strongly about it. मल्ल (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have retargeted Hindu view of marriage to Marriage in Hinduism. This one seems obvious. If anyone disagrees they can start a separate discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no pages that link to Hindu Marriage (#2). I propose we delete Hindu Marriage because there is no instance where that term would be a proper noun in a sentence.Hindu marriage should point to Hindu wedding considering it is used on the pages of celebrities to indicate their style of ceremony. On Feminist theology, the link is “Hindu marriage ceremonies” (emphasis mine), indicating it is about Hindu weddings, just describing the term in a different way. Drew Stanley (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do see some discrepancy in how these links are used in articles but in many examples “marriage” is the more appropriate meaning and in some cases either one could work. Several articles used piped links [[Hindu marriage|Hindu wedding]]. I find the editors’ actions frankly a little strange here but I realize people use wikilinks without checking where they point. Editor behavior does give us a clue towards usage but shouldn’t necessarily dictate redirect behavior. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give an example in which “marriage” is more appropriate? There are few enough articles that I am willing to just go in and make the fixes rather than use the redirects, when unnecessary.Agree to delete Hindu Marriage, right? Drew Stanley (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the 11 uses of Hindu marriage in articles, Marriage in Hinduism is the best fit in 5:

  • Govender v Ragavayah:
    

    The court noted that Hindu marriages were not recognised in South African law, which violated section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court ordered that the definition of “spouse” in section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act include the surviving spouse of a monogamous Hindu marriage.

    This clearly describes the relationship between the legal and religious status of “marriage”.

  • R. K. Narayan:

    The concept of horoscope-matching in Hindu marriages and the emotional toll it levies on the bride and groom is covered in the second book.

    This second one is interesting. “Bride and groom” suggests a meaning closer to “wedding” but the choice of “marriage” suggests that the “emotional toll” extends beyond the wedding day, impacting the rest of the marriage. That sentence should be reworded to “Hindu wedding” if the intended meaning is more restricted.

  • Sapinda describes a type of cousin marriage in Hinduism. Sapinda § Conditions for a Hindu marriage includes the following:

    Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 laid down conditions for a Hindu marriage. A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely […] Out of the five above conditions, this article refers to the condition stated under section 5(v), which states that if the Hindu bride and the Hindu groom are “sapindas” of each other, the marriage between the two cannot be solemnized by law and will be legally void.

  • Svayamvara:

    Svayaṃvara (Sanskrit: स्वयंवर lit. ’self-choice’) is a matrimonial tradition in ancient Indian society where a bride, usually from Kṣatriya (warrior) caste, selects her husband from a group of assembled suitors either by her own choice or a public contest between her suitors. […] Despite being closely associated with the epics, Svayaṃvara is not listed as a form of marriage in the Dharmaśāstra, a collection of Sanskrit texts on law and conduct.

    Here, “form of marriage” is a piped link using the Hindu marriage redirect. This corresponds to the content of Marriage in Hinduism, especially Marriage in Hinduism § Types of marriages.

  • Yogic marriage is a poorly sourced stub. The usage here is potentially ambiguous. Although “consummation” typically occurs on the wedding night, whether or not the marriage has been consummated is a binary status that applies for the duration of the marriage. Overall, I read this as referring to a type of marriage where the features of the “wedding ceremony”/”act of marriage” (the chanting) is a defining feature.

  The usage Hindu marriage ceremonies or Hindu marriage ceremony appears in two articles: Feminist theology and T. Ramaswamy Choudary. A better option here would be [[Hindu wedding|Hindu marriage ceremony]] or creating a Hindu marriage ceremony redirect to Hindu wedding. (Hindu marriage Ceremony does exist…) Or maybe the editors were deliberate about wanting to link to the “marriage” article and not the “(wedding) ceremony” article.

  Three articles use the piped link [[Hindu marriage|Hindu wedding]] so that the Hindu marriage redirect shows up as “Hindu wedding” in the text: Parineeti Chopra, Parineeti Chopra, Raghav Chadha. This is an inappropriate use of redirects and piped links and these should be replaced with the direct link to Hindu wedding.

  The only remaining article is Wedding of Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and Jetsun Pema. Here, I would just replace Hindu marriage with Hindu wedding or Hindu marriage ceremony. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And yes, reasonable to delete Hindu Marriage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hindu marriage redirecting to Hindu Wedding per Myceteae. As per Myceteae’s comprehensive, and quite impressive, research, ‘Hindu wedding’ refers to the ceremony, or ceremonies. ‘Hindu marriage’, on the other hand, refers to the relationship. Keep Hindu Marriage redirecting to Marriage in Hinduism. If I’ve understood the arguments correctly, ‘Hindu Marriage’ refers to the relationship of marriage in the context of Hinduism. Katiedevi (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Katiedevi just to clarify, Hindu marriage is currently a redirect to Marriage in Hinduism and Hindu Marriage is a redirect to Hindu wedding. It sounds like you agree with my assessment, which would suggest we ‘keep’ Hindu marriage and ‘retarget’ Hindu Marriage to Marriage in Hinduism so that both redirects point to Marriage in Hinduism. What are your thoughts on deleting Hindu Marriage since ‘Marriage’ is not normally capitalized in phrases like this? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hindu marriage per discussion above. Do not keep Hindu Marriage—delete or retarget to Marriage in Hinduism. Yes, there is some ambiguity but we should align “marriage” with “marriage” here. Both articles have hatnotes to account for anticipated ambiguity. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first, retarget the second so they’re aligned, though deleting the latter wouldn’t matter that much. —BDD (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete both or delete neither per WP:SMALLDETAILS since it is just a capitalization difference. (Otherwise, I don’t have an opinion where these target.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the subject on the target article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. I rather expected to end up somewhere like Umbria. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it’s worth, NIH lists “Umbrium” as one of many trade names for diazepam. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is a standard {{R from trade name}}. Some drug articles have dozens of brand name redirects though, appropriately, only one or two prominent brand names will be mentioned in the article. I question the wisdom of creating all these redirects but it is an established practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn’t make much sense to me. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PANDORA, Wikipedia is not a calculator. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two out of three of the creator’s only edits were to create the page before it was redirected. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This one was created on 4 May 2009 by BobTheBuilder44 (talk · contribs) while 12+12 was created on 10 May 2009 by Ryry892 (talk · contribs). With this one it was redirected about a minute after creation and then restored about a minute later and redirected again about a minute later. Both articles could be said to meet A3 though I doubt that they would, given how short they were articles I don’t see a problem with deleting at RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as helpful – pageviews aren’t minimal. If Wikipedia is used as a calculator by some I don’t see why we should purposefully deny that use. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the fact that WP:PANDORA is just one of the multitude of this redirect’s issues. When searching this term via third party search engines, results are returned for 8/4, which is not related to the nominated redirect’s target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with the invocation of PANDORA here. Given the infinite number of simple equations and the infinite possibility of more complex equations, the potential verification and maintenance burden for this sort of redirect is tremendous. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said below, I don’t follow the PANDORA argument for deletion. It appears to be “this redirect is helpful, but its existence might encourage the creation of more helpful redirects” which is reasonably incoherent. I’m not saying these redirects should be actively created – but people are only going to do so based off the existence of this redirect if they’ve really got nothing better to do. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that it’s helpful. As has been mentioned, someone searching this is likely looking for something with this title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is the case for 12+12, Wikipedia is not an arithmetic repository. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Target section does no longer exist and cricket is not mentioned in the article at all. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical redirect, but shouldn’t this point to Cipher if there is already an article for it? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per the afd, it was an unsourced guide with seemingly user-generated “references”. the target currently has no info on homemade or handmade soap beyond mentioning that it exists, and neither does soaper consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and AfD. Not a single participant in the 2007 AfD recommended a redirect. It was bafflingly redirected to Soapmaking which subsequently became a redirect to Soap. The article apparently contained content copied from Soapmaking but there’s no indication that any content was merged to that article or anywhere else. This should be deleted now as it should have been almost 20 years ago at AfD. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i just realized this could’ve been a g6, assuming closures against consensus count. oops consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a plausible interpretation of {{Db-xfd}} G6. Consensus was straightforwardly in favor of deletion and the closer gave no rationale for their decision to redirect instead. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it’s worth a try, i guess consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, no harm in leaving it be a few more days instead of doing an experimental DRV-speedy. Don’t necessarily take this as a precedent, but it does deserve a much broader discussion at WT:CSD if we want to go with that as a criterion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i mean, this definitely wouldn’t be the only case of a close against consensus that i could name as precedent, and it doesn’t seem to be shaping up to be the only case of a subsequent discussion closing as delete at least partially per the first discussion’s consensus. maybe it’ll be the only case in which the first discussion was also old enough to consent at the time of tagging? the fact that this is a maybe should probably concern me, but i’m too lazy for that consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d definitely have declined such a CSD if I were the patrolling admin. It’s not my responsibility as CSD-reviewer to second-guess another admin’s closures – if you want to second-guess a closure there are separate processes for that. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PANDORA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

spanish for “soapmaking” or “soap shop”, but no affinity towards it or use as a loanword demonstrated outside of some passing mentions in other articles, all seemingly referring to one place in chokishgna. other results were fittingly exclusively spanish consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weird case, oh boy. i thought this would’ve been a clear-cut retarget to shampoo#baby, where it’s mentioned, but as it turns out, results were torn between pretty much everything but detergent. shampoo, liquid soap, machines you toss babies in to make them get clean (more like a car wash than washing machine, from the looks of it), the act of washing babies, several assorted products named “baby wash” whose only common trait is being extremely proud of how much they’re not soap, etc. so uh… what do? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#DELETE reason 8. No evidence that anyone has ever called anything this, and it isn’t plausible as a typo. lp0 on fire () 13:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:R#DELETE#8. Google returns 13 hits, none of which refer to the American pope. The closest things are something Roblox related called “Hysterico Americo- Pope Mouse” and records of people named Americo Pope. None of these are notable nor are they formatted “Americo-pope”. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like a useful redirect – only one “Dawans” currently on en:wikipedia, and although it is a relatively rare name, there are multiple articles on other persons with this name on other language wikipedias, including one with a highly similar name to the current target (see Wikidata, fr:Adrien Dawans, de:Sigismund von Dawans). If not redirect, could be a short disambiguation page. Shazback (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation with interlanguage links seems the best solution. — Reconrabbit 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of redirects from a surname is to assist the reader who can only remember the surname or who does to wish to type out the full name. They are used either when Wikipedia has only one article about a person with the given surname (this case) or because one individual is the most likely topic sought by this surname. See WP:RKEEP #6. Greenshed (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might be looking for the Atoni people, also known as Dawans. Sting Kipu (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambiguation page would be best then. Greenshed (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the following be OK as a disambiguation ?:

Dawans may refer to:

The Atoni people, ethnic group on the island of Timor

Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans (1899–1944), German general

~See also~

Dawan (disambiguation)

Shazback (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC):: Davan[reply]

Redirect to Dawan (disambiguation)? After all, if we are to accept Dawans having two major meanings here (the Atoni people, and Sigismund-Helmut von Dawans), then it’s instead a case of WP:ONEOTHER. Perhaps we can instead list the Wehrmacht general within the Other uses or the See also sections in that disambiguation article? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gaza war or Israeli invasion of Gaza —MikutoH ^talk! 03:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gaza war to match Gaza Massacre (2008)Gaza Massacre (2008) → Gaza War (2008–2009), Gaza massacre (2012)Gaza massacre (2012) → 2012 Gaza War, and Gaza massacre (2014)Gaza massacre (2014) → 2014 Gaza War disambiguate Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: I bundled Gaza Massacre Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gaza war per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gaza War (2008–2009) as alternative name in boldface, and/or otherwise create disambiguation page for this term. There is no mention of “Gaza massacre” in the Gaza war article like there is for the 2008-2009 war, so oppose this. For context the following “Gaza massacre” redirects include; Gaza Massacre (2008), 2010 Gaza massacre, Gaza massacre (2012), and Gaza massacre (2014), thus there is a logic to a disambiguation page that includes not only the war articles but also outliers such as 2010 Gaza flotilla raid. Courtesy ping to editors above.​​​ CNC (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate this is a concise description of many events that have unfortunately happened in Gaza. While this is a very likely search term, its also pretty ambiguous since Israel has created no shortage of such events. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 10:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate due to the ambiguity of such a term. There is, regretfully, no shortage of such atrocities within the Gaza Strip. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name not mentioned at target. This page was the subject of an AfD in 2023 where it was redirected to its current target, but the name has never been mentioned there, apparently. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there’s any reason to keep this old redirect around for something that starts with Draft: I created it accidentally a while back. RayScript (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DIFFCAPS, I do not believe that a capital in “S” in “Streak” is enough to differentiate these redirects’ target from Winning streak, the target of redirect “Win streakWin streak“. With that being said, here are my votes for these redirects:

Retarget Win Streak to Winning streak, adding a hatnote there pointing towards the current target of the nominated redirects

Delete WinStreak as an unnecessary WP:CAMELCASE redirect since it was created well after the cutoff year for such redirects being useful (2004 or 2005)

Delete Win+StreakWin+Streak per precedence set at the RfD discussion for Compressed+natural+gas at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 29#Compressed+natural+gas

Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move WinStreak without redirect to Winstreak. Even if technically “incorrect”, it could plausibly be thought of as a compound word, with evidence that some of our editors think of it that way. Otherwise agree with nom on the other two. Left guide (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC) Forgot to add it should be subsequently retargeted to Winning streak. Left guide (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Left guide: Per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, since WinStreak contains essentially no history that needs to be retained, it would make more sense if you created Winstreak yourself. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, if it helps establish consensus, as a second choice I would be ok with deleting WinStreak so long as creating Winstreak as a redirect to Winning streak is allowed. Left guide (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Win+StreakWin+Streak: Hariboneagle927 has shown evidence below that the organization publicly uses this style on their website and social media. To me, that’s more than sufficient to be considered both helpful and plausible. Left guide (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Left guide’s viewpoint: Retarget Win Streak and WinStreak to Winning streak, and Delete Win+Streak. Winstreak is plausibly viewed as a compound word. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DemocracyDeprivationDisorder: Just FYI, Left guide actually stated that WinStreak should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support their view that “winstreak” itself could be seen as a compound word and thus WinStreak is a valid understanding of the word. I don’t agree with the conclusion that it should be deleted. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Issuing a correction to Keep Win+Streak as a specific trademark, per Hariboneagle. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that seems like a different case, the volleyball team specifically is referred to as “Win+Streak”. It seems everyone is overlooking that its a trademark/brand name. Its a plausible search term for someone just copying pasting that term. I could see the arguments that everything else could be retargeted to Winning streak in retrospect.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hariboneagle927: I currently do not see such evidence or mention about “Win+Streak” referring to the current target of these redirects in the current target of these redirects. If there can be evidence provided, I will retract my “delete” stance on Win+StreakWin+Streak since such evidence would invalidate my nomination rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page owns socials uses “Win+Streak” 1, 2 (as per on the note on the page itself). But I have to concede that third party sources overwhelmingly refer to the team without the “+” stylization, but the club does use it on their logo and in its own channels (more accurately they are inconsistent with using WinStreak, Winstreak, Win Streak and yes “Win+Streak”)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is that this stylization is not mentioned in the sections of the article prior to the content referred to in MOS:FOOTERS. I see the mention in Taichung Win Streak#Notes, but redirects from phrases such as this really should be in the body of the article somewhere. Possibly state the alternative name(s)/stylization(s) in the body of the article somewhere, possibly rendering the note unnecessary? Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator follow-up: Withdrawn my stance on Win+Streak, but cannot actually withdraw it from this discussion due to an active non-“keep” vote regarding it. Steel1943 (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Since there are no more non-“keep” votes, I have withdrawn Win+StreakWin+Streak. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ve manually pulled the RfD tag there to implement this withdrawal. Hopefully it doesn’t screw up the script for the eventual closer of the other entries; if it does, the closer can feel free to revert my edit there right before closing. Left guide (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:PANDORA applies in a productive manner here … because if we don’t delete this thing, we are saying arithmetic calculations such as this are helpful redirects, which they are not. (One would think that WP:NOTMATH or WP:NOTCALCULATOR would exist, but I guess they do not.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are infinitely many arithmetic expressions that equal 24, including 24 sums of smaller nonnegative integers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this was the creator’s only edit. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was an article that contaiend “24” and “12+12=24” and was turned into a redirect around 2 minutes later. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per LaundryPizza03 — .nhals8 (puhLEASE ping when responding) 13:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943, with a hint of WP:SNOW lp0 on fire () 14:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a calculator. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  well… consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and LaundryPizza03. There is value in asserting consensus that these are inappropriate. More complex operations that might be inspired by the proliferation of such redirects represent an even greater burden to verify and maintain. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to push back against yet another awful WP:PANDORA argument. There is nothing inherently wrong from redirects from “arithmetic calculations”, especially when the target describes such calculations. It’s admittedly minor, but the target describes things like the sum of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles along with it is equal to two dozen. WP:NOTMATH is also a pretty poor argument, Wikipedia has plenty of math. Take Lists of mathematics topics or, closer to the previous argument, List of equations. Even WP:NOTCALCULATOR is a bit silly given, for example, 12 (number)#List of basic calculations exists. — Tavix ^(talk) 01:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree this WP:PANDORA argument is awful here because I actually can’t stand WP:PANDORA myself and would not have cited it unless it was basically a last resort. There is really no other way to explain what is wrong with this redirect. Even then, the examples presented to refute the claims of the nonexistent “WP:NOTMATH” and “WP:NOTCALCULATOR” are “needle in a haystack/I found an exception” situations that maybe they need reevaluating themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there truly isn’t “any other way to explain” then perhaps it may be wise to conclude that there isn’t actually anything wrong with this redirect. — Tavix ^(talk) 01:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly … at the end of the day, it truly is an unlikely and potentially misleading search term. Readers could be looking for a subject about the concept of “12+12” or something related, such as 12/12 (which seems to be one of the primary results for third party search engines when searching “12+12”). So no, though WP:PANDORA is what I originally cited, it was to give a generality of why such redirects are troublesome … which is that the mathematical target of such a title is not necessarily what readers are intending to find. Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IIRC, 12/12 and the like showing up is because “+” is a Search wildcard. I CTRL-Fed through search results and couldn’t see any “12+12” or “12 + 12” mentions on the site. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s what I was thinking as well since third party search engines tend to do regex-like searches … which seems like a potential WP:CLUER argument since a reader searching this on an external search engine may be attempting to do some sort of regex-style search (compatible options would be “1212”, “12212”, “122212”, etc), which is not what this redirect is currently targeting. Guess no system knows what anyone wants when it comes to this string of characters. Steel1943 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. The PANDORA argument for deletion appears to be “this redirect is helpful, but its existence might encourage the creation of more helpful redirects” which is reasonably incoherent. I’m not saying these redirects should be actively created – but people are only going to do so based off the existence of this redirect if they’ve really got nothing better to do. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an arithmetic repository. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apricity is a rare term for the warmth of sunlight in winter. Because the word sounds fancy and has a nice meaning, people have named a lot of things “Apricity”, mostly within the last decade or so. Apricity may refer to:

And those are just meanings that I could dig up by searching English Wikipedia.

It’s not at all clear to me what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be. Note that none of these things called “Apricity” actually has its own article. They are all just mentioned in passing in other articles, with little substance provided. ~2025-32085-07 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Topics need not have articles of their own to qualify for inclusion in a disambiguation page, so long as the meet WP:DABMENTION. BD2412 T 01:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412: That’s what I was thinking too, but I wasn’t sure. I’ve drafted a disambiguation page; maybe you or someone else could check it for compliance with WP:MOSDAB. ~2025-32085-07 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made some tweaks, but I generally think this is very good. BD2412 T 20:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DABify per nom and BD2412. Keep the dictionary definition and Wiktionary link in the lead. It’s possible this could have article potential, given the interest in the word despite its infrequent usage in the wild, but the proposed dab page set up is a good option. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as noted the term appears to refer to “the warmth of the sun in winter” which is probably what many of these proper nouns refer to. Google mainly returns that and doesn’t appear to return anything for the current target though the dictionary meaning probably doesn’t matter that much. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per others and the fact that the DAB has already been drafted. Someone will need to create the redirect Apricity (disambiguation) after this discussion is closed. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nom and BD2412. Dab pages consisting solely of a couple of mentions are questionable; but when there’s 13 potential targets, a dab page is very helpful. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect, too generic and not particularly associated with the topic to need it. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (maybe even speedily). Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i just put this because this phrase is used in other games to spoof the period Trollface 2006ALT (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as vague, with mild opposition to speedying. while i have been seeing the phrase get used a lot in the context of game development… yeah, that’s exactly it. devs of games other than dick dickem’s babe-abandoning hour have been using it. this essentially means “delete per creator”, which is kind of funny consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. This is a common phrase with no specific referent. Not suitable for a dab page, either. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague —Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not necessarily associated with Duke Nuken, as shown in this source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe appear on 2006 topic but i don,t know 🙁 Trollface 2006ALT (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Video game publisher#Business risks where this specific phrase is discussed. It’s not brilliant but it’s better than search results IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation on the target page of what a “Judas hatch” is or any mention of this elsewhere on Wikipedia either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must have added the redirect when I found it on the web. Examples of use:

https://www.theunmutual.co.uk/inverlair.htm

>Richard reveals who might have been held in Room 13 with its sliding Judas hatch, and the infamous SOE trainer who left the bullet holes in the staircase.

https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3440&context=cq

> In a poem for Paul, “Stilts,” the carpenter who comes from another town to manufacture “playthings for the soul” has a kinship with

> St. Joseph. In the last poem in this book he watches himself, his own worst enemy, through a Judas-hatch.

https://parliament.nt.gov.au/business/tabled-papers/13th-assembly/13th-assembly-2016-tabled-papers/october-2016/79.-Office-of-the-Childrens-Commissioner-Northern-Territory-Own-Initiative-Investigation-Report.pdf

page 24

>22 Judas hatch – a hatch within the cell door which folds down to allow things to be passed through the hatch without the need to open the cell door. 84user (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would be welcome on Wiktionary, regardless of whether the redirect is kept. lp0 on fire () 14:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]