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 speedy delete. Redirects created by page moves don't usually qualify for G7 but this one does because the author was the sole contributor of the moved page as well. Hut 8.5 19:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Botany çay → Botan çay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo: I meant to write "Botan çay", but somehow I wrote "Botany çay" Macrakis (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: I've tagged the page for WP:G7 speedy deletion. If you want to delete a redirect that you created yourself you can speedy it, it doesn't need a full week long RFD discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2021 (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 Middle Ground. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 16:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle ground → Argument to moderation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should honestly be targeted towards Middle Ground (disambiguation). When people refer to Middle ground, they are much more likely to mean the golden mean than the fallacy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the disambiguation page at Middle Ground. I don't see any reason why this alternate capitalisation should target a different page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, better as a redirect to Middle Ground (disambiguation). Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Middle Ground: This is obviously what the average searcher would be looking for. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One of the terms the nom wishes to disambiguate, Golden mean (philosophy), is not listed at the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mdewman6: added. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:44, 3 September 2021 (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 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 8 nanometer → 10 nm process  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously pointed to 7 nm process. Neither 7 or 10 is equal to 8. I don't know much about the underlying technology and which is closest in terms of design (I found the link from GeForce 30 series). Can someone who knows this stuff suggest where to point it? Else I say delete. Gaioa (T C L) 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the 6 nanometer redirect, which has at various times targeted both 5 nanometer and 7 nanometer. Would that be worth bundling here? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I may not have finished engineering school and may not be professionally qualified to say so, but it's my understanding that 8 still does not equal 10. If this were 8nm process I would say redirect to Die shrink#Half shrink which defines unofficial half-steps between the standard-defined semiconductor processes, but "8 nanometer" is just a measurement which we can't presume refers to die processes, nor which one it refers to. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the target does discuss an "8 nm process", which apparently is a variation of the 10 nm process [1] [2] so it's a reasonable target. Hut 8.5 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong on both counts. The article does not discuss the 8 nm process per se, it mentions that Samsung have a version of that process. The article itself defines the 10 nm process as "'10 nm class' denotes chips made using process technologies between 10 and 20 nm," which plainly does not include 8 nm. SpinningSpark 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the article does mention the 8 nm process several times, so it's a reasonable target unless it's covered somewhere better. Those links say the 8 nm process is based on the 10 nm process so the 10 nm process article isn't a bad place for it if it's not worth mentioning somewhere else. Hut 8.5 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a case for an 8 nm process redirect to somewhere, but not 8 nm which could mean all sorts of things. Same goes for all the [[<foo> nanometer]] redirects. Ivanector's suggestion of a target sounds good where there is not a specific article. SpinningSpark 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps too late to bundle into this discussion as the IP asks, but all such "# nanometer" redirects should be considered for deletion as well with the outcome of this discussion as useful precedent, unless there are other targets that would be cause for disambiguation or retargeting. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (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 Devil Town (disambiguation). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Devil Town (song) → Cavetown (musician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are two songs with this name and both are equally irrelevant (musically speaking). I pointed "Devil Town (song)" to Devil Town but it was inexplicably returned back to Cavetown. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update, I have created Devil Town (disambiguation) and Johnston's song is the most likely to have an article as it has been covered several times. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Devil Town (disambiguation). Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that Devil Town (disambiguation) exists, this probably should be a WP:RM discussion, but since it's here, I suggest moving Devil Town to Devil Town (film), moving the disambiguation page to the base title, and retargeting the nominated page to the disambiguation page as a ((r from incomplete disambiguation)). - Eureka Lott 00:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this suggestion. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 07:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as well.--Trystan (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm ok with the disambiguation page suggestion above, but I'm struggling to understand why this was ever targetted at Devil Town in the first place. That film article does not mention a song of any sort. SpinningSpark 17:27, 4 September 2021 (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.