Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19: Difference between revisions

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2025.

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Amargi is a notable Turkish social collective and former feminist magazine, plus also a new media website (theamargi.com) and album by music group “The Sympathy of All Things”. (the latter two likely aren’t notable, yet). This redirects to an alternative transliteration of a Sumerian word, that while the probable origin of these other names, is not the most notable version of it. Katzrockso (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 18 and consensus that the speedy was contested. I am neutral and this is a procedural nomination as DRV closer. Star Mississippi 03:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Speedy deleted, fairly offensive as is. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: can you explain what is offensive about this? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—WP:Wikipedia is not censored and it’s a valid redirect with RS noting that it has been referred to as such. إيان (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target and implausible due to the random quotation mark at the end. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:15, 19 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]

• Keep “Hindu marriage” – agree with Myceteae analysis. and Delete “Hindu Marriage” – having different redirects is confusing to a reader and the capital M makes this look like a name – also don’t see the capital M as plausible search term Asteramellus (talk) 13:12, 17 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]

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]

  Note that this entire section, along with discussion of the phrase, was removed in Special:Diff/1321942923. I am not convinced this was a good edit but haven’t yet decided to restore it. Rusalkii (talk) 06:55, 18 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]

Should this target I-cell or Enteroendocrine cell#I cell? TNstingray (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Mdewman6. “I cells” are enteroendocrine cells found in the small intense, “I-cells” are abnormal cells containing inclusions. Why they had to make it so similar, who knows. Katzrockso (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Google search reveals several universities – most notably Stanford – have a department with this same name. Zzz plant (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, there are many universities with this department. Katzrockso (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]