Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 1

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Task chair → Office chair (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Title not mentioned in target at all UltraMagnus^speak 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this redirect was plainly relevant to the subject as a descriptor of a type of office chair that is widely used. Anyway, I've added a new section to the target, to deal with it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tecno-woman → Woman (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Created by banned User:Mac, this appears to be a wholly made up (and misspelled) term for some kind of... what? Modern woman? I don't know. The term appears nowhere in the target article and nor does it appear to exist as a real term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - confusing redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing and unhelpful. I found a blog about a business with this name and an article comparing "tecno-women" with offline women, but that hardly helps this redirect make sense.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless and confusing. 193.113.135.112 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Human rights#Asia. It should be noted, however, that an article Human rights in Asia also exists that might be a better redirect target, but this can be implemented later through regular editing and discussion if so desired. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Human rights groups and the Middle East → Amnesty International (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not useful. This was once an article, but an AfD in 2007 ended with a "merge" verdict and now it redirects to a section of the Amnesty International that doesn't exist anymore. Prezbo (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. to Amnesty_International (remove target section). The AFD verdict was 'merge' not 'delete' so it is normal to leave a redirect behind. There is a substantial page history that, for GFDL reasons, needs to be retained after a merge, and this is the most convenient method. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget somewhere else, possibly Human rights in the Middle East or Human rights#Asia. I mean, is Amnesty International the only human rights group in the Middle East? That's like Businesses in Manhattan → Macy's. I agree with Bridgeplayer that the redirect should not be deleted, but neither the license nor good sense requires that it target to the merged article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Human rights#Asia. I am persuaded by Glenfarclas that we need a better target. The original content was broadly criticism of AI, though that hardly come across in the title. The retarget that I am now going along with directly addresses human rights groups in the region, and I think would be helpful to a searcher. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alcácer Ceguer → Ksar-el-Kebir (links to redirect • history • stats) 

They are two different Morocan cities. Ksar-el-Kebir (Portuguese Alcácer-Quibir) and Ksar Seghir (Portuguese Alcácer-Ceguer). 85.53.3.194 (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the fate of this redirect should also apply to Alcacer Ceguer. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--85.53.2.122 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a widely used term, normally in the form 'Alcacer Ceguer'; so deletion would be a real bad option. If there are genuine alternatives then this can be dabified. However, we need some expert opinion so I have sought views from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It would be good to get views from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Ksar-el-Kebir (pt: Alcácer-Quibir) and Ksar Seghir (pt: Alcácer-Ceguer) are two cities about 150km apart[1][2] and looking at the histories of the pages, they were orginally two quite separate articles - Alcácer Ceguer and Ksar-el-Kebir. Somewhere along the lines, it seems that things have become muddled; someone has mistakenly thought the two cities were the one and tried to merge the articles. If I have this right :), I suggest moving Alcácer Ceguer to Ksar Seghir and reverting back to an appropriate page, and reverting Ksar-el-Kebir back to an appropriate page, so we have two articles on two cities again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]