Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2019.

List of People whose name is Ichiro[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) 22:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. We already have Ichiro for non-diacritics purpose. No other redirects starting with "List of people whose name is" exists. Either we mass-create those, or we delete this one. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it's also miscapitalized. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:26, 8 April 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.

Brexit means Brexit does mean Brexit[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) 21:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this redirect should exist. If you believe there is a valid reason for keeping this redirect, please let me know. If you see any redirects here that you think should be deleted, go ahead and nominate them. Mstrojny (talk) 21:05, 7 April 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.

Hey Girl (Justin Bieber song)[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) 21:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this song at target or at Justin Bieber discography. Another rumoured track? Richhoncho (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreleased 2014 track, so it is a plausible search term but it’s not mentioned at target article.—NØ 09:46, 8 April 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.

Forever Lost (Album)[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 Forever Lost (album). — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of an album of this name on target (there is a song, which also has a redirect). Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Forever Lost (album) for obvious reasons.--NØ 16:49, 8 April 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.

Portal:British Overseas Territories[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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now unnecessary and a surprise. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Overseas Territories Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 7 April 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.

Palace of Westminster/images[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) 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary, there is no section talking about the images B dash (talk) 08:31, 7 April 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.

Inert munition[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) 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy round describes only one type of "inert munition". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 7 April 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.

Inert bomb[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) 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not describe an "inert bomb". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 7 April 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.

Pincushion flower[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 Pincushion (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget somewhere. I discovered this situation by accident after seeing an off-wiki reference to "pincushion flower". I can't envision a reason why these two should go to separate places, but as I've never heard this term, I don't want to be WP:BOLD here. I thought of six other forms of the name, but they're all redlinks: Pincushion-flowers, Pincushion flowers, Pincushion Flower, Pincushion Flowers, Pincushion-Flower, and Pincushion Flowers. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:54, 7 April 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.

Portal:Music of Trinidad and Tobago/Related Trinidad and Tobago portals[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 housekeeping that's now taken care of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has only ever been a redirect to Portal:Trinidad_and_Tobago/Related_portals which causes the weird idea that Portal:Cuba and other country/island specific portals are related to Music in Trinidad and Tobago. There is no other appropriate target. If someone was maintaining the parent portal page they might populate the page with links to some other portals, though other then the country portal I don't know what those would be. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand what the issue with this? It's apparently being used to transclude a list of portals related to Trinidad and Tobago, which seems equally relevant to a the list of portals related to music above it. In other words this seems to be both in use and harmless. If it were claiming to be portals related to the music of Trinidad and Tobago then you might have a point, but it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only obstruction as Intry to fix the portal. Page is a strange artifact that does nothing useful. I'm blanking it and removing it from the portal. This is housekeeping. Just close this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 7 April 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.

Chainmail bikini[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 Bikini in popular culture#Bikini icons. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See concern raised by Equinox at Talk:Gender representation in video games#"Chainmail bikini" redirects here, but.... I agree that it's a women's issue reaching beyond the scope of video games, though the Gender representation in video games article currently contains more information on the topic. feminist (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bikini armor and the "scalemail bikini" link from Bikini in popular culture both go to Gender representation in video games. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to have a wider target than just video games, since this really this is something present across pop culture in general, not just videogames. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have one more chance on it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bikini in popular culture#Bikini icons. This is a major trope in fantasy fiction and predates video games with resolution sufficient to depict a chain mail bikini. Chain mail bikinis show up on covers of fantasy novels, comics, and instruction manuals of pen and paper role playing games. Tvtropes has a list of examples (though not exclusively chain mail bikinis; it covers other types of revealing armor as well). Plantdrew (talk) 22:26, 8 April 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.

Destruction Duet[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. Nothing needing saving ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction Duet it was closed as merge in 2005 though I’m not sure if we should be held to that since none of the 65 minigames are currently mentioned in the article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:42, 7 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_7&oldid=1072177127"