Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 7

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]

• List of People whose name is Ichiro → Ichirō  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Brexit means Brexit does mean Brexit → Brexit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete Brexit means Brexit is a plausible search term, but this is not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Thryduulf. Doesn't appear to be a valid search term.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 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.

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]

• Hey Girl (Justin Bieber song) → Believe (Justin Bieber album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Forever Lost (Album) → The Magic Numbers (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Retarget per MaranoFan. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 9 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.

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]

• Portal:British Overseas Territories → British Overseas Territories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Now unnecessary and a surprise. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Overseas Territories Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The MfD closed with explicit consensus to redirect and there is no reason to change that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The redirect is misleading because it implies a portal where there is not one. Also note precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 2#Portal:ISIS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous consensus and stop forum shopping. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The MfD was a year ago before the portal cleanup. Look at the fantastic comment by the creator. [1]. How is this forum shopping a long time later? Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 11 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.

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]

• Palace of Westminster/images → Palace of Westminster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems unnecessary, there is no section talking about the images B dash (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom, doesn't appear to be a valid target. If there were a gallery section, it could direct there, but there isn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this was originally created in 2004 as an image gallery, then moved or redirected to Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Europe/United Kingdom/Cities/London/Palace of Westminster a few days later. In 2006 the redirect target was changed to the present target to avoid a cross-namespace redirect. In 2007 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of images deleted this and other galleries as now redundant to Commons. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 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.

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]

• Inert munition → Dummy round  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Inert bomb → Dummy round  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Pincushion flower → Pincushion (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pincushion-flower → Scabiosa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Both should go to either the existing Pincushion (disambiguation), or to a new SIA for flowers known by this name, however punctuated. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pincushion (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 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.

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]

• Portal:Music of Trinidad and Tobago/Related Trinidad and Tobago portals → Portal:Trinidad and Tobago/Related portals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

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.

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]

• Chainmail bikini → Gender representation in video games#Women in scanty armor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Chainmail Bikini → Bikini in popular culture#Bikini icons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

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]

• Comment - I think the target should be the more comprehensive topic, which currently is Gender representation in video games#Forms, barely. If there are examples of this type of garment in media other than video games, it would be best to create an article about it (or add/expand on a section in an existing article, such as Bikini in popular culture#Bikini icons (note, this anchor does not currently exist in the article)). Until then it makes sense to keep (and retarget in the case of Chainmail Bikini)) the redirect for both terms to the place where the most information about the topic is located, which as I understand it is (marginally) Gender representation in video games#Forms. There is a mention of scalemail bikinis in Bikini in popular culture about a niche magazine cover, but that looks like the only mention in the article about think kind of garment. There is nothing about the use of the term in relation to video games other than the scalemail term, which is piped to the same section in Gender representation in video games. The best solution would be to expand on the concept in the pop culture article (and it shouldn't be all that difficult if it is as prevelant as Equinox says), but until then I think the target should be the video game article. Regardless of outcome, both links should point to the same target. - Paul^T+/_C 22:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC) NB- scale armour bikini, scalemail bikini, and Scalemail Bikini should also target whatever both Chainmail Bikini and chainmail bikini end up targeting... - Paul^T+/_C 22:55, 21 March 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.

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]

• Destruction Duet → Mario Party 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete. Not mentioned at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 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.