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. Jay (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Psalter (Roman Catholic) → Latin Psalters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure if this redirect is really useful; redirects are heap but should have a reason and I do not see the reason or this redirect to exist. What do you think? Any opinion is welcome. Veverve (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Problem is not articulated. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnbod: sometimes - it happens rarely, but it happens - I do not really know what to think about a redirect, I have a vague feeling the redirect may somehow have a problem, so I think to myself: 'I will ask others at the RfD for their opinion, maybe they will have more insight than I have on this redirect'. This is one of those cases. Veverve (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The point that the Roman Catholic Church is connected to the subject of the target is articulated in the first paragraph. The redirect is a singular version of "Psalter". Unless there is another "Psalter" topic which has connection to a topic called "(Roman Catholic)", the redirect is helpful as currently designed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Never mind: Per Psalter, which apparently also has connection to "Roman Catholic", this redirect is vague. Since Psalter is considered a parent topic over the current topic, weak retarget to Psalter. However, since the connection of either subject to "Roman Catholic" is a bit vague/weak, probably better to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) (Struck. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC) )[reply]

  @Steel1943: The Latin Psalters article lists numerous Psalters which were officially used by the Catholic Church (the Gallican psalter, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, the Pian Psalter, the Nova Vulgata psalter), as well as schemata for psalm reading that the Catholic Church used or uses. I am not trying to make any point to reach a decision, I simply attempt to have a fruitful conversation. Veverve (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm not too sure per your statement and my statement. I really do think deletion is more proper than a retarget since the disambiguator is somewhat vague. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ???? "(Roman Catholic)" is "somewhat vague"? Everything at the current target concerns Roman Catholic psalters, so I really can't see the issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Same could be said with Psalter somewhat since it references the Roman Catholic Church, thus possibly vagueness. Per the articles, looks like it could refer to either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Psalters are used by all Christian denominations, with "Palter (Roman Catholic)" pretty clearly defining an obvious sub-set. There are some differences - notably Catholic ones use a different numbering system (after a certain point). Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...With that explanation, I'm going to wholly strike my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redirect was made after a stub article duplicating Latin Psalters in a subsection (Roman Psalters) was made. Keeping the redirect will make sure a similar article is not made by mistake in the future. This also has 23 page views from 1 year ago to now. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not entirely clear what action needs to be taken here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 / retarget to Video game journalism. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Video game publication → Video game publisher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should redirect to Video game journalism - I can see how one could argue that "publication" can refer to the act of publishing a video game, but Video game journalism is a much better fit, and online VG publications are mentioned numerous times at proposed target. Previously redirected to Video game journalism but target was changed by another editor in 2018. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DABify: both meanings seem to have equal importance. Veverve (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disambiguation pages are not a search index, so the above suggestion would be against Wikipedia policy. In cases such as this, where the redirect is too vague to have a clear primary topic, it should be deleted to allow the search function to do its job and show the closest possible answers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (at current target). I suppose it depends on whether you read publication as a verb or a noun. I don't see an issue with the proposed target or some kind of DAB, but I don't think deletion is helpful given there are two clear possibilities for what this refers to. If kept or retargeted a hatnote should be added from the target to the other. A7V2 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and disambiguate using a ((redirect)) hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Video game journalism per nom, and add hatnote there to Video game publisher. Use of the noun "publication" likely refers more to a tangible publication than the act of publishing a game. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify/disambiguate per nom. Books (game guides, hint books, art books, etc), magazines, journalism, the games themselves -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. ✗plicit 01:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Canton (Canton) → Guangzhou  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see how this redirect is helpful since neither the title nor the disambiguator is clear regarding what "Canton" they refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, the only reasonable interpretation of the title is one "Canton" that's located inside another "Canton". So the only plausible target I can see is "Canton [City] (Canton [Province])" – that is, Guangzhou. Compare Canton, Canton. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep variation of Canton, Canton -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is reasonable since the article says "Guangzhou ... also known as Canton". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 disambiguate. Jay (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingdom of Britain → Kingdom of Great Britain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguate, see a draft. --212.114.109.229 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to dab page per 212.144. I'd also add King of the Britons and/or Celtic Britons to the dab page if this proposal is accepted. Tevildo (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created Draft:Kingdom of Britain for any further work while the discussion is in progress. Tevildo (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dab per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Two options from me.
  • Weak support (because I don't think it's a term that would commonly be used by mistake, but useful for differentiation purposes). The draft by Tevildo looks okay, only I think that the Kingdom of Brittany belongs in the See also section, as it's not a close match, and I would use the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the link. Also perhaps add Parliament of Great Britain in the See also, as Kingdom of Great Britain Parliament redirects there?
  • Redirect to Great Britain (disambiguation), which includes most of those, as well as other DABs, and can be added to.

Either way, the articles currently linking to it would need to be changed to link to the correct target. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have changed the draft a bit, and also added Monarchy of the United Kingdom in the "See also" as King of Britain redirects there. --92.67.192.180 (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 List of Baby Einstein videos. Jay (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Baby Wordsworth → Baby Einstein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Baby Santa → Baby Einstein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, deletion seems appropriate unless there's warrant for creating List of Baby Einstein characters. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Baby Einstein videos where they are mentioned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rosguill: can this be closed as retarget? Jay (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  yep, that seems good. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Mathematics education. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebra education → Category:Algebra education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Algebra is part of mathematics, and the general article Mathematics education would be a better target than the current cross-namespace redirect to an incomplete list of articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see this relevant discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. eviolite (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection An article would be best, but a target in mainspace could also be an improvement. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ㆗ → Kanbun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This character has multiple meanings and it does not necessarily refer to a single topic, so I suggest deleting this. CrazyBoy826 02:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If anything, I would expect this to redirect to China or Chinese language, as it is a common abbreviation for those. Too ambiguous to be useful as a RLOTE, and not worth disambiguating. At most we could make it a soft redirect to Wiktionary. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is U+3197 IDEOGRAPHIC ANNOTATION MIDDLE MARK, not the first character of China which is a different codepoint, U+4E2D CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-4E2D. We correctly do not have a redirect for U+4E2D 中, for the reasons mentioned by Mx. Granger. However this codepoint U+3197 is intended to encode the kanbun annotation mark only, and thus it points to the correct place. If you type chuu in your Japanese IME or zhong in your Chinese IME, the character you will get is U+4E2D not U+3197. To avoid the understandable confusion, we could add hatnotes at the target; I've also added a comment on the redirect itself, and I'll add comments on the other redirects to kanbun as well. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying that. I have stricken my comment above. I suppose it's unlikely anyone would search for this character when looking for information about anything other than kanbun, so on that basis it makes sense to keep the redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the IP's analysis. eviolite (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Mentioned at the target, which is a direct refutation of the delete argument. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• American Spring (2020-2022) → 2020–2022 United States racial unrest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a real term. Dronebogus (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's attested in the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this from an article tagged for deletion because the term does have a Google presence and is sourced in the article. If nothing else the redirect discourages others from duplicating this content. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Parrying shield → Shield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "parry" or a variant is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a problem with the article not the redirect, which certainly goes to the right place. Why don't you write something? Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the purpose of redirects is to guide readers to information about what they are referring to, not to where there is no information. Yes, the problem may be the article, but as long as there is no information in the article about the phrase, the phrase as a redirect targeting where it does is unhelpful. In fact, it may be better to have the redirect deleted so that Wikipedia's search function can provide potentially more helpful results. (That, and yeah, score one for me choosing not to add anything to the article since that's not my realm of expertise at all.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Someone searching for "parrying shield" will not be served by the shield article. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Red link. It seems that parrying shields are a specific class of shields which vary from region to region. I'm seeing references from Egypt, Australia, Philippines and India to name a few. I think an expert on these shields need to make an article though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 12:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drancia Saga → Gunman Clive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned anywhere in target. Was WP:PRODded by GooseTheGreat (talk · contribs) but redirects are not eligible for PROD so I'm moving it here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm assuming the redirect is talking about this game. These games are barely related at all, other that the fact that one of the characters appears in that game. GooseTheGreat (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK seems to be another game altogether. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• East Timorese English → Languages of East Timor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect was listed at WP:PROD. Rationale was

Tetum and Portuguese are the official languages there, and although English has "working language" status alongside Indonesian, there is no distinct community that makes use of English as a first language, the other native languages of the island nation have more L1 users than English

. Procedurally moving since redirects don't get prodded Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - non-trivial information about English usage in official capacities is included at the target. While it doesn't appear to be a canonical variant the way that say Hong Kong English is, the target is nevertheless informative for readers who may well be searching with this term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.