The result of the debate was delete. --ais523 16:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing redirect. How can we be sure that World War VI is that war to end all wars and not WW3, or WW4, or WW6 or...? Resurgent insurgent 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom. Appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL --Shirahadasha 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "War to end all wars" was used to describe WW1. Redirect is confusing and fairly silly. WjBscribe 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Abeg92contribs 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the previous comments. mattbr 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete confusing redirect. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the best reason to delete is because much of the article war to end all wars is actually about World Wars I and II. 38.100.34.2 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uawp (hist) ⇒ Portal:Ukraine
• Ruwp (hist) ⇒ Portal:Russia

These are both non–standard shortcuts to portals that both have corresponding standard P: shortcuts. These both have trivial edit histories, could be confused with encyclopaedic content as a user searching for these terms would not expect to be taken to a portal, and provide no advantage over the current convention. Note: These were previously under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 17#Portal–related redirects to the Portal: namespace along with redirects that contained 'portal' in them, which was closed as no consensus. I believe that these do not meet the concern expressed that the redirects aid the navigation of new users/non-wikipedians. mattbr 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Zero incoming (Uawp had one incoming that has now been changed). --- RockMFR 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have found a couple more cross-namespace redirects like this to these two mentioned portals: Ukrainian portal, Russian portal. —dima/s-ko/ 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those two were part of this nomination, which was closed as no consensus as it was expressed that the redirects aid the navigation of new users/non-wikipedians, which these two nominated do not. mattbr 12:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. —dima/s-ko/ 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do not consider the Middle East "the holy land". Doubtful a user will search for this to find wineries in the middle east. VegaDark 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The term Holy Land (Biblical)#Geography provides a definition of the territories covered which is not the same as the definiton in the Middle East#Geography article. If this isn't possible/appropriate, suggest deleting the category. --Shirahadasha 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this is a likely search term, and roughly equivalent. Abeg92contribs 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it constitutes a POV. Who is Wikipedia to say that one part of the Earth is more "holy" than the rest of the planet? I'm not familiar with religious viewpoints of the middle east, but I am assuming that calling the middle east "holy land" is associated with a particular religion or religions. Keeping this redirect endorses those religions, IMO. VegaDark 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to read Holy Land & Holy Land (Biblical). Holy Land is a widely used term and it would be POV for Wikipedia to not cover it. -- JLaTondre 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying we shouldn't cover the subject. We should certainly have articles on it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have a redirect that expresses a POV that not everyone agrees with. I think the disparity might be "holy land" as simply a name vs. "holy land" as being literally taken as "holy". Either way, it does look as if there is a geographic difference between the two and the redirect can be deleted on those grounds. VegaDark 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Middle East is larger than the area typically referred to as the Holy Land. Redirecting a category from a more specific to a more general can be confusing to the person looking for information. People are more likely to search for wineries by country then by this. -- JLaTondre 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually a pretty unlikely search term and any target would be rather POV- i.e. whose Holy Land? I also agree with JLaTonder that redirecting cats from the specific to more general is unhelpful. Category:Wineries of the Middle East is likely to selected as the most appropriate category for the relevant articles in any event, making the redirect pointless as far as I can see. WjBscribe 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, redirecting is a technical thing and does not endorse the view that the terms are somehow equivalent. We often redirect smaller things to bigger (or more general) things, if the smaller things do not deserve articles on their own (a minor character in a show might not have an article but be a redirect to "List of characters from show such-and-such, for example). And I quite frankly disagree with the view that using the term "holy land" constitutes a POV; it's a fairly common English name for the region (even if it has slighly religious overtones), and it does in no way "endorse religions" any more than such geografical terms as The Angels or Saint Francis. -- Ekjon Lok 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting article topics from a more specific topic to a more general topic is different then cats. Articles provide context for the information they provide; cats do not. If we redirect a character's name to a list of characters, the person using the redirect will be easily able to find that name in the list. In this case, the user is going to get links to a bunch of articles and have no idea which ones are actually in the Holy Land and which ones are not. The whole purpose of cats is to group related articles. If we are not actually going to group by the more specific topic, then we shouldn't bother to have a cat for it as it is not doing our users any good. -- JLaTondre 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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