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 converted to article and retargeted Egyptian architecture there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Architecture of Egypt → Ancient Egyptian architecture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Egyptian architecture → Ancient Egyptian architecture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Building in Egypt didn't stop when ancient times ended. 217.117.125.83 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I also found Egyptian architecture, which I'll be bundling here. Happy holidays, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 16:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the long term, we need an overview article on the history of Egyptian architecture and that's what these should direct to, so I support retargeting at that time (and I honestly doubt there would be any objections by then?). In the meantime, I don't know whether it's helpful to delete these redirects or just wait until such an article is hopefully created. (I've been considering converting Architecture of Egypt into an overview article for a while now, but I just don't have the time yet to start that. There are substantial articles for most architectural periods, so an overview article only really needs to have summary sections linking to them.) R Prazeres (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDYES to promote article creation. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Category:Architecture in Egypt or delete in favour of an article in the long term. Jay 💬 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or replace with drafted article if it looks promising. Jay 💬 19:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to article: I boldly made a stub to replace the redirect; expanding it would be greatly appreciated. Duckmather (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! If there's no procedural objection to doing this in the meantime, I can add some material soon for the Medieval(/Islamic) era. I think most editors above agreed that an article creation was ideal. R Prazeres (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection. In fact the instructional comment at the redirect encourages you to create a draft of the article to replace the redirect. Jay 💬 19:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  However, note that this instruction is valid only as long as the redirect is listed at the RFD, which usually is 7 days. Whereas this discussion is in it's 18th day now, and may be closed any time. Courtesy ping Presidentman to see if the objective of the new article creation has been met. Jay 💬 02:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks great! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright I've added to the draft just about everything I could in one day (in part by copying and adapting material from relevant existing articles). Will still need some work if published as an article of course (I haven't drafted a proper lead summary yet, for example), but I think this is a good base to start with and hopefully gives a sense of the article's scope. R Prazeres (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support conversion to article: I basically commented as much already above, but just making my support for this more explicit, now that I've put some work into a draft. R Prazeres (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The toilet → Toilet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of the word "The" makes it seem this redirect is supposed to refer to a specific toilet or the title of a work, not toilets in general. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The phrasing "I'm going to the toilet" is common, without referring to a specific toilet or one's own toilet. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...So is "I'm going to the ball" or "I'm going to the game", but The ball doesn't exist, and The game is a redirect that targets The Game, a disambiguation page with a list of works and entities with the title "The Game". I suppose if this isn't deleted (preferred option), the alternative would be to weak retarget to Toilet (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a costly redirect. We shouldn't be indiscriminately creating redirects from article subjects prefixed with the definite article (e.g. The color, The film, The website). A change of target to the DAB page would also be unsuitable, because none of the topics listed there are referred to by "The toilet" or even "The Toilet". Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree this is COSTLY and confusing even if not capitalized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COSTLY. The Game is already a disambiguation page that also links to "Game (disambiguation)". MusiBedrock (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 withdrawn/target Yarra Bend Park. Targeting both of these to Yarra Bend Park per Orderinchaos A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yarra Bend → Yarra Bend Park  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Yarra Bend, Victoria → Fairfield, Victoria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think these should target the same place (note that Yarra Bend Park is also in Victoria. The locality in Fairfield seems the more likely primary topic but there is next to nothing about it in Fairfield, Victoria. Disambiguation is an option too. I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I went and looked at a Melway (authoritative book reference) and Yarra Bend Park is spread across both Fairfield and Kew, Victoria, while there's no reference to the locality at all. I checked the Morgan's 1960 directory and it claims the locality within Fairfield was actually "Fairfield Park". So I think redirecting Yarra Bend, Victoria to Yarra Bend Park makes a lot of sense. Orderinchaos 14:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Jay 💬 05:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hampton Primary School → Hampton, Victoria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was briefly an unreferenced stub article before being PRODed. This prod was removed and then shortly after the PRODer redirected it to Hampton, Victoria. There is, however, no mention at all of this school at the current target. Note also that there is more than one school by this name, see entries in List of government schools in Victoria, Australia and List of schools in Kent (there may be others). So I think best to delete. If others feel it is necessary then of course we can restore the article and send to AfD. A7V2 (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, delete per OP. This was my doing, albeit more than 11 years ago so I can't recall my logic at the time. Orderinchaos 14:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate I'd move it to Hampton Primary School, Victoria and making "Hampton Primary School" a DAB along with the Kent one and Hampton Hargate Primary School in Cambridgeshire, see List of schools in Peterborough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced disambiguation is a good option here. I don't think we should be disambiguating what are just list entries. A7V2 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in favour of Search. (And note Hampton Hargate Primary School is not known as "Hampton Primary School"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No mention in the target article. Converting this redirect into a disambiguation would be a bad idea, as all the instances of "Hampton Primary School" in other articles are either list entries or very brief mentions. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as a rule we shouldn't disambiguate a primary school name when none of the schools by that name are notable. Let the search tool do its job. (Compare the similar ongoing RFD discussion that I started at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Westlake Middle School.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. ✗plicit 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Karin Futo → Grand Theft Auto IV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (non-notable vehicle). Dominicmgm (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. Not mentioned at target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moemar → Moe Szyslak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From what I can tell, this character's first name is Morris, commonly shortened to Moe, and in one episode he was jokingly called Momar. Neither Momar or Moemar are mentioned in the article. Furthermore, searching on Moemar primarily finds a Nebraska homebuilder. Delete. MB 01:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muammer. This Arabic name has many alternative spellings per Wiktionary including “Moamar”, and “Moemar” is a slight misspelling. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Retargeting to Muammer could be confusing and astonishing for some readers, who may not immediately know why they ended up there at the dab; especially if they're looking for the character mentioned in the series. Deletion seems best in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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) 20:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Current European Car of the Year → Kia EV6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect title, as target likely to change annually, therefore would require human maintenance to update each year. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Almost definitionally WP:COSTLY. TartarTorte 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to European Car of the Year where the searcher will find what they are looking for, though admittedly in an unlikely search term. Certainly having this target the actual current holder is not acceptable (per nom), and my second preference is to delete. A7V2 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did ponder a retarget to that, but then that isn't a convention for anything else and if this article doesn't exist, the search results would show the European Car of the Year article anyway. It just seems like it may set an unnecessary precedent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bungle: For what it's worth, see WP:PANDORA ... which is usually an argument (existence of one title will result in more problematic titles) that usually doesn't hold a lot of strength in RfD discussions per precedence. But the argument you initially stated, which falls in line with WP:COSTLY (requires regular maintenance), could go either way, but traditionally such arguments tend to result in deletion ... and obviously, per my comment below, I agree with it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - it's a moving target. I don't think it'd be particularly helpful to retarget it to European Car of the Year since that's the more likely search term anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sable232 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it's a redirect that requires at least annual maintenance. WP:COSTLY. No thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Russian Invasion of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Russian invasion of ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Russian Invasion Of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Given that recent consensus decided that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", I don't think it makes sense that that term should redirect there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, which disambiguates this ambigous term. That was my (prevailing) opinion when I started the first RfD, my (not prevailing) opinion in response to the second one, and my (at least partly prevailing) opinion at the RM. Until a year ago "Russian invasion of Ukraine" primarily referred to the Russo-Ukrainian War as a whole (and was this redirect's target till I boldly retargeted it a month before the full invasion). Prior to that, it might have referred to any number of 20th-century military actions by the USSR or Russian SFSR. And so on. Across three previous discussions, I haven't seen anyone argue that the current invasion is, long-term, the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Rather, people have made per se recentist arguments that it's the best-known invasion and then hand-waved from there to "obvious primary topic" or such. It's not the obvious primary topic. If it is the primary topic, I'd really like to see someone explain why in a manner that doesn't boil down to "it's the one that's currently happening". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine per consensus at recent RM that 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine is not the primary topic for this. A7V2 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've added some redirects which differ in capitalisation only since they should all target the same place. I did not add Russia invaded Ukraine which also targets 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, though perhaps someone should. A7V2 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I did not vote! in the recent RM though I did make a general comment regarding WP:DETCON and WP:NHC and that WP:AT was the prevailing WP:P&G) The close did not find that that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary topic was only specifically raised by the Nom and two others (who had opposing views). Editors gave opinions regarding other invasions but these were not made within the context of WP:P&G or evidence but tended to argue opinions. IMHO (and quoting from WP:NHC, most arguments offered were irrelevant and flatly contradict established policy - specifically WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT (a policy), to which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a guideline) specifically defers. WP:TITLEDAB states: ... [a] title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The policy is based on there being an actual and not a perceived or potential conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict between Russian invasion of Ukraine and any other Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, we are specifically told to use only as much additional detail as necessary. Because there is no actual conflict in titles, preceding with year (eg 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) flatly contradict[s] established policy. I am not here to relitigate the RM but the prevailing policy is directly related to this discussion. Keeping that in mind, what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and what is the evidence? Of the invasions/occupations listed at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine immediately post the Russian revolution, average daily page views are less than 40 (and typically much less).[1][2][3][4] Looking at the two other events listed under the Russo-Ukrainian War and the long term results from before the 2022 invasion: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has about 2,000 page views per day;[5] and, War in Donbas has about 2,500.[6] WP:RECENTISM was raised during the RM in that the 2022 invasion overshadows earlier events. After a year, average daily page views are tending to flatten at somewhere between 40,000-50,000. At an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the other two relatively recent events, that is a lot of recentism to overcome. What weight do we give recentism? That can only be considered by comparison of the global ramifications and consequently, how these will be viewed comparatively in the future once the dust has settled. While WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL ... The global reaction and direct global ramifications (particularly economic), demonstratively far exceed the other events - even if this is a somewhat qualitative metric. IMHO, the weight to be given recentism is not so significant to change the result from present evidence. Even for these other events that may be termed invasions, this is not part of their WP:COMMONNAME, given common name is the primary criteria for determining an article title. Bottom line: actual evidence assessed against the prevailing WP:P&G supports keeping this as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic (I raised the RM, after all)—this RfD is because of the outcome: most !votes to oppose in the RM cited potential confusion with other invasions of Ukraine (the 2014 invasion of Crimea in particular). As I directly asked for comments about whether it was the primary topic by requesting a move, and people seemed to agree that it was not the primary topic,^[a] I went forward with the RfD. I don't really think this RfD should happen, but I do think that given the outcome of the RM, it would be silly not to bring up the redirect, as it seems to go against the consensus just established: that a large portion of people looking for the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" would be brought to a page that differs from what they were looking for. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DecafPotato, I know where you stand but the problem with the argument you would italicise is that it is made without evidence to support such an assertion. And if a reader does happen to be looking for something else, that is why we have a dab hat note at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The existence of other invasions does not preclude one from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - that is intrinsically the point of the guidance therein. Simple citing WP:RECENTISM does not ipso facto preclude a recent event from being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's important to consider here that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partially disambiguated title ("Russian" disambiguating a base title of "Invasion of Ukraine", which was ruled ambiguous at both previous RfDs). The standard for PRIMARYTOPIC status for such titles is higher than for regular PTOPIC considerations, as readers generally expect a disambiguator to fully disambiguate. So it's not just whether the current invasion is the one people are reading about the most (which it obviously will be, as it's ongoing), or even whether it's the one that's gotten the most global attention (which it probably is, although I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you think)—but whether it is so clearly the primary topic that we are justified in having an incompletely-disambiguated title redirect to it... Which is functionally the same proposition that was just rejected at RM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:PDAB: ...PDABs can have primary topics, but that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator". WP:PDABLIST is only listing articles that have parenthetic or comma disambiguation. The spirit and intent of the cited WP:P&G (including WP:INCOMPDAB) does not appear to apply to natural article titles - ie the assertion that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a partially disambiguated title ("Russian" disambiguating a base title of "Invasion of Ukraine" does not appear to hold water when compared against the cited WP:P&G. So, while the standard for PRIMARYTOPIC status for such titles is higher, it does not appear to apply here. On the other hand, WP:TITLEDAB is quite explicit in the requirement, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. I was not arguing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because it has it's the one that's gotten the most global attention. Rather, I stated The global reaction and direct global ramifications (particularly economic), demonstratively far exceed the other events and, [it] can only be considered by comparison of the global ramifications and consequently, how these will be viewed comparatively in the future once the dust has settled. This is equivalent to WP:10YT. The recent RM was largely based on unsubstantiated opinions which really didn't cite WP:P&G and which that are (largely) flately contradicted by established policy. [Is] it is so clearly the primary topic that we are justified in having [this title] redirect to it? Unlike the previous RM, we now have actual evidence before us. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the list article, as proposed. The delegation of this name to the February 24th invasion is WP:RECENTISM. An encyclopedic point of view of history keeps in mind that there were Russian invasions of Ukraine in 1659, 1708, 1775, 1918, 1919 (2×), 1920, 2014, and 2015. —Michael Z. 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AfD is not the place to discuss redirects that should at least point somewhere. They should probably all point at a disambiguation page for the Russian invasions (and I support that redirect) but deletion is entirely inappropriate here Neonchameleon (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Neonchameleon: This is RfD, not AfD, and the proposal is to point to a disambiguating list; no one has suggested deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current redirect. Sure thing, the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (correctly included to the list suggested as new target) was not a Russian invasion. Same with Khmelnytsky Uprising and some other events in the list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well sure, but that's because there haven't been enough invasions of Ukraine overall to justify a separate "List of Russian invasions and occupations of Ukraine". When redirecting to a page that disambiguates a term, it needn't be the case that every item on the page is something the redirect could refer to. After all, we might redirect an ambiguous term like Foo (album) to Foo (disambiguation), even if there are items on that page that aren't albums. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War. 2022 invasion is a part of Russo-Ukrainian War. Cryptopia (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck (as a discussion participant, not as an admin) per WP:GS/RUSUKR: Non-extendedconfirmed users may not participate in internal discussions about the Russo-Ukrainian War. No offense intended, Cryptopia. Happy editing elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As much as it is in line with policy, is it not somewhat problematic that one of the main participants in this discussion is striking the comments of other users? Hentheden (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a reader searching for one of those terms will almost certainly be looking for the current (closing in on a year-long) event. This may change in the future, but retargeting now is simply sending readers somewhere they aren't looking for. CMD (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine doesn't seem like a great target to me, because it includes a number of invasions by countries other than Russia. LittlePuppers (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The ongoing invasion is the WP:PTOPIC for this redirect, and it is going to be the thing that the vast majority of readers are searching for. It would serve our readers better for this to point to the ongoing invasion, which already contains a hatnote to the list of invasions. This is going to save people clicks relative to any other option, and I see no motivating reason to move this to target the dab page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close. As I mentioned in one of the previous (weirdly many?) retarget discussions for this disambiguation page, the front page refers to the conflict as the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine". It is very clearly the primary topic, and while there might be an argument to be made following the war that it is recentism (I would still disagree then), it is a currently ongoing conflict that the vast majority of readers searching for the term will be looking for. In the meantime, a page with presumably a lot of traffic looks broken, as with the discussion ongoing here the page just directs to itself.... Hentheden (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Secularity. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 15:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Secular world → Irreligion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this is the correct target for this redirect. For one, the current target is not exclusive to the concept of "secularity". In addition, it is unclear what specific article of the list of articles that begin with "Secular" this redirect could best refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Secularity is the best target? The lead includes the text "from Latin saeculum, "worldly"", which establishes a connection. – Scyrme (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards "secularism" since that is probably the actual focus of being in a world that is secular. All religious people are by default secular. Jack David Eller and anthropologist of religion and irreligion says most versions of secularity do not lead to irreligion. Only 1 out of the 10 versions he names, is irreligion.

- Ramos1990 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's a reason to target Secularity rather than Secularism then? The former covers the more inclusive sense which encompasses the "secular world" which in which religious and irreligious people both participate, whereas the latter is the social and political point of view, often (but not necessarily) associated with irreligion, which maintains that religion ought to be separated from the political and/or public sphere. – Scyrme (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have to ask what "secular world" refers to. According to Collins dicionary [7] it refers to an irreligious world that is intentionally without religion or promoting irreligion. Namely secularism since that -ism makes it a philosophy or worldview of view, not just something in politics. Also sociologists speak of secularism as a social contexts. Secularity is religious neutrality on the other hand, which includes religious pluralism. Are there other sources that use "secular world"? For better context of course. I don't think anyone is talking about the "world", when referring to the "secular world". Secular world means something else than just world. Perhaps it is redundant and should just be deleted from wikipedia? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that "secular world" is just the world. My understanding of "secular world" is that it is the sphere of human life which is not overtly religious. Economic activity, for example, largely belongs to the "secular world" even though most participants are probably personally religious to some degree. This is not synonymous with just "the world"; churches exist in "the world" but are not part of the "secular world" because they are overtly religious institutions.

An online dictionary, Vocabulary.com, explains: Public schools are secular, but Catholic schools are not. Grocery stores are secular; a synagogue is not. If there's no religion involved, then you're in "the secular world" — as people sometimes call everything that exists outside of religion.

The Collins link you provided does not give a definition for "secular world", it provides only some examples while defining "secular" and "world" separately. – Scyrme (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vocabulary.com quote does a dichotomy of religious/secular which Eller mentioned was false. Collins showed examples of actual usage. I searched google books for "secular world" [8] and saw results that show that "secular world" seems to be associated with a world without religion and emphasis on unbelief and unbelievers, not a world that has religion, but is kept in compartments. I found this from a atheist website too [9]. I am starting to think that "Irreligion" (aka "nonreligion") is the correct redirect for "secular world". It one thing to be a part of the 'world' (that is inevitable), its another to be 'worldly' (a particular attitude or worldview). Check this out on how "Irreligion" is distinct form "secular" [10].Ramos1990 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Secularity. I am more swayed by Scyrme's arguments above, and further argue that the content of that article directly addresses the various understandings of "secular" and will help orient the reader regardless of whether they encountered the phrase in a context intended as "the non-religious parts of existence" or "societies not based primarily on religion". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And to close out the December 24 page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Secularity per Rosguill, per definition. MusiBedrock (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).