Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 20

June 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2014.

====His Royal Highness the Most Serene Infante Don Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Girona, Prince of Viana, Duke of Montblanc, Count of Cervera and Lord of Balaguer ==== 


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * His Royal Highness the Most Serene Infante Don Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Girona, Prince of Viana, Duke of Montblanc, Count of Cervera and Lord of Balaguer → Felipe VI of Spain (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete: Implausible search term, particularly now he is no longer called this, if he ever was. DrKiernan (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a retarget to List of titles and honours of Felipe VI of Spain? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: one of many ways to combine his titles, mixing English and Spanish. It is pretty obvious that nobody would type all of that, so this redirect violates the very idea of redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nobody will ever type this in. It is too long and combines two different languages. -- Kndimov (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Send to DAFT. -- N  Y  Kevin   00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

WINDOWS @)))



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WINDOWS @))) → Windows 2000 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This typo will only be typed during the following specific set of circumstances: The likelihood of creating these circumstances are so unlikely that this redirect is not useful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The reader holds down the SHIFT key for the entirety of typing this in. (Not CAPS LOCK, since the symbols would be numbers.)
 * 2) The reader has a QWERTY keyboard.
 * I have a QWERTY keyboard and above my #2 key is the ". Therefore, move without leaving a redirect to WINDOWS "))).-- Laun  chba  ller  18:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your QWERTY keyboard is different than ones I have seen. In the cases I have seen, pressing SHIFT+2 creates an "@" symbol, not a quotation mark ("). So essentially, both options are not acceptable in my mind, given that it requires holding the "SHIFT" key during the input's entirety. Steel1943  (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * weak keep I've run into a bug that SHIFTS everything I type, due to the IME having a coniption fit. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: on my keyboard it would be WINDOWS "===, and numerous other layouts exist. We just can't make redirect for every careless typing habbits and software bugs, so no point in keeping some of those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, improbable typo. ï¿½ (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

EasyPC



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * EasyPC → Personal computer (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

EasyPC is a product that is not discussed on the Personal computer article. It is therefore utterly useless to any reader looking for information on EasyPC computers, and they will have their time wasted reading the article trying to find it. There is also a rather better known product Easy-PC for pcb design (on which we also do not have an article) and anyone following the link looking for that is going to be totally baffled why they ended up where they did.  Spinning Spark  17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:REDLINK -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:R criteria 2 and 5: whith no context on target page it may lead to falso conclusion that "EasyPC" is an alias for "personal computer" or particular flavor of it; it does not make any sense to redirect from software title to hardware. I don't see how WP:RED applies here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Σχολαστικός



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Σχολαστικός → Scholasticism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the scholarly language of the time for the area in question was Latin, not Greek. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FORRED-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP



 * 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 keep. The target already is Have I Got News for You. As both a harmless and a useful search term deletion is contra-indicated. Redirection to Roy Hattersley would simply confuse any searcher since this term is not mentioned there. Adding information to the MP's page is a  matter for the editors of that article and outside the scope of RFD. If, in the future, the information is added to that page then the target can be reconsidered. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Rt. Hon. Tub of Lard MP → Have I Got News for You (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Surely this should redirect to the MP and the information about the event added to Hattersley's article? Laun chba  ller  14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Refine to section Notable Moments since this is the section that discusses it. A satire nickname works better in an article about the comedy program. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or refine per Ego White Tray: I had hard time figuring out the meaning of this title, so I would favor deletion. If it is just me, refining target would work just OK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Kaliningrad Art Gallery



 * 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 Kaliningrad. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Kaliningrad Art Gallery → Kaliningrad (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Topic is not covered in target. TheChampionMan1234 07:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to Kaliningrad. It was covered in the article but not by name. I have now rewritten the entry to cover the Kaliningrad State Art Gallery for which this is a plausible search term. I would add that this redirect is nearly 5 years old so deletion may well break external links for no benefit. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Whispering Wind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There still is only minimal information on the gallery. Delete to encourage creation of a standalone article; in the meantime, search results will serve readers just as well. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I gather, it is only a partial name – article title should be Kaliningrad State Art Gallery – so WP:RED should not apply here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be the correct title, yes. But in an ideal Wikipedia, Kaliningrad Art Gallery would redirect there. Perhaps that title should be added to this nomination. If we want to encourage creation of an article on the gallery, both should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and refine target to Kaliningrad. "Delete to encourage creation of a standalone article" is a very weak argument. --Cavarrone 08:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.