Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 28

May 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2009

The Albino[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Albinism.--Aervanath (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Albino → List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Not mentioned in target article. Moving from AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Blood Oath (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). The character in question is mentioned in that article.--76.69.166.51 (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Blood Oath (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), I agree with the above argument.
There are other fictional characters named "The Albino" (The Princess Bride comes to mind). Retarget to Albinism or Albinism in popular culture. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to something non-DS9 related - I've seen every episode of this show, and this character is in one episode. Out of 172 or whatever episodes, this absolutely isn't notable enough for even a mention on List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and is far too obscure to redirect to the individual episode. That would IMO set precedent to create redirects for every minor character introduced in any TV series to the target episode, which would be bad. Additionally, as mentioned above, "The albino" could probably refer to many more characters or things that have nothing to do with this DS9 character. VegaDark (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with retargeting to Albinism. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessively generic. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Eureka Lott (talk · contribs) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dow Jones EURO STOXX 50® Index[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dow Jones EURO STOXX 50® Index → Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 Index

The registered trademark is IMO a highly unlikely search term MLauba (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Zeus-^u|c 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any search for "Dow Jones EURO STOXX 50® Index" will bring up the article Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 Index as the first result. The redirect does not have significant incoming links and the pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmm, I don't even know how to make that symbol and I'm sure there is a lot of people just like that. I can't see anyone using this redirect. Tavix | Talk 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless, the official name and the previous location of the article.--Rumping (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:ASUS[edit]

The result of the discussion was deleted by administrator, not needed talk page redirect. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ASUS → Talk:Asus

This page is for discussion about the redirect page, and should not redirect to the talk page of the article. Does not qualify for CSD/prod. -Zeus-^u|c 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Is there anything controversial about this? I got a talk page note, and my first instinct is: "The page needs deleting? Ok." However, I don't want to violate any kind of protocol, if we're already listed at RFD. Is there any particular reason not to just kill it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that usually, that page is supposed to be reserved for discussion about the redirect itself, and not be a redirect to the other page. -Zeus-^u|c 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just be bold and make that edit? Has someone expressed a wish that it be otherwise? You and are the only editors who've ever touched it, and I only touched it indirectly because it was left over from a page-move I carried out. I'm not attached to it in any way. I'd say be bold. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can see to keep it a redirect would be if there were a lot of links to it that would be broken. In this case, there are not. I usually delete this as part of page-move cleanup; I'm not sure why I missed this one. I'll just delete it now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:ILIAD[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ILIAD → Wikipedia:Iliad

Such a silly essay really doesn't need a shortcut as well. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the shortcut is not any shorter, and the essay is not of great import. -Zeus-^u|c 17:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zeus ("shortcut is not any shorter") and Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings, misspellings, tenses and capitalisations, which indicates that single-word page titles are found using a case-insensitive search. The redirect has no significant incoming links, so deleting it will not leave a mess of redlinks. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.