Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2021.

Somebody Somewhere (TV series)[edit]

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 HBO original programming#Upcoming programming. OK, I'll play Vice President and cast the tie-breaking vote. Anyone looking to create the article will surely find the Somebody Somewhere disambiguation, where they will (hopefully) find the redirect link they should convert to an article. wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a biography which doesn't mention the show. Apparently upcoming, see List of HBO original programming#Upcoming programming. Delete, to encourage article creation when justified. Narky Blert (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of HBO original programming#Upcoming programming. If this is mentioned somewhere, why not target to where it is mentioned? An article can always be created later on if needed. Natg 19 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't retarget to that ephemeral section. The show might be there now, but the redirect will be invalid and confusing again in a few months or years. pburka (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list article. It is mentioned there and gives more info than a redlink. Can be turned into an article at any time if notable. Several other links in that list are not articles on the subject either but brief mentions in other articles. MB 19:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I try to avoid multiple relists, but there's a real tension here in pointing to the little information we have, vs. knowing with near-absolute certainty it's going to become out of date, probably in not too long. I don't see how to resolve that beyond more numbers on one side or another...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:57, 30 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.

2 nm[edit]

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 those redirecting to the same number, delete those redirecting to a different number. wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects are too ambiguous to point to their respective targets, likely leading to astonishment for many searchers. A similar redirect 8 nanometer was deleted per a recent RfD, these should be deleted per the same rationale. Proper "# nanometer process" redirects and redirects with the number spelled out should be created, as none of those logical redirects exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity, as there are no other articles dealing with those nanometer numbers. The only Wikipedia articles discussing these specific nanometer numbers are the nm process articles. There is no confusion there. Also, the rationale is not the same. The rationale given for deleting 8 nm is because there is no article called 8 nm process, so it wouldn't make any sense redirecting 8 nm to 10 nm process. Obviously, the numbers should match, which was not the case there, hence the deletion. If the numbers match, as in 3 nm redirecting to 3 nm process, for example, then there shouldn't be any issue there. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no ambiguity whatosever. Perhaps you should explain in greater detail what exactly is it about these pages that could be considered ambigious. What do they collide with to make them ambigious? None of the links you provided, the RfD one included, provided adequate reasoning.
"Xnm" is a very common shortened spelling practice for these process nodes. It's often used in tech media as well as in official communication by hardware manufacturers. See for example AMD's website: "7nm technology", "CMOS: 14nm".
"Proper "# nanometer process" redirects and redirects with the number spelled out should be created, as none of those logical redirects exist."
Feel free to create these pages if you believe they would be useful. I've never seen anyone spell out the number part in the name of a semiconductor node, so I didn't even think of adding such pages. Though I see how such redirects could be useful for someone who has never seen these terms written. --Veikk0.ma 18:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:31, 30 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.

Io Wahine[edit]

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 Kiho-tumu. Since the nom agrees with Coastside's suggestion, then consensus is basically unanimous at this point. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase does not appear to occur in any of the targets on the disambiguation page to which it points, and I am unclear of any affinity between any version of the terms. BD2412 T 23:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This must originally have meant to refer to Kiho-tumu, as this is the only entry that makes sense. According to [[1]], Io Wahine is the female version of an all-knowing god. I believe Kiho-timu is a name of this all-knowing god. You may want to link there, and use {{R from related}} and {{R without mention}}. Here's another source: [[2]].

[rough translation from Dutch] In Polynesian mythology, especially among the New Zealand Maoris and the Hawaiians, Io is male and supreme god. ... He is regarded as 'all-knowing' and 'eternal'. ... . 'Io' (also called 'Kiho') means 'core' and contains both male (Te Io Ora) and female substance (Io Wahine).

So Io is the same word as Kiho, meaning core. And Wahine means 'woman', i.e., female core.Coastside (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is another redirect Tel lo Ora. The fate of these two redirects should probably be the same. I suggest keeping them both. Coastside (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) [Revised] Coastside (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kiho-tumu with {{R from related}} and {{R without mention}} Coastside (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coastside: excellent research, thanks. BD2412 T 02:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Interesting... I think Io Wahine refers Io Matua Kore as well as Kiho-tumu. I think one is Hawaain and the other Maori-Polynesian, and the name may be the same for both. The word for woman in both Hawaiian and Maori is Wahine. The article on Io Matua Kore references the The Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary, which includes entries for Io and Iowahine:

IO (myth.), God, the Supreme Being : Ko te tino Atua ko lo, nana i hanga te whenua me te rangi — A. H. M., ii. 4 ; see also L. P., 132 (with in- cantation). Cf. Iho-o-te-rangi, P. M., 102. lo begat lo-nuku, who begat lo-rangi, who begat Tawhito-te-raki, <fcc.— A. H. M., i. 32. 2. Power, force, energy, mental or physical (one auth). 3. The soul. 4. Life. Cf . lo-wahine, the name of the first woman. 5. A twitching or bodily uneasiness, a sign of the presence of a god ; to twitch thus : Ki te mea ka lo i te pokohiwi he taha — ^A. H. M., ii. 6. [See Takibi.] 6. Fish cut into strips, and dried in a native oven. 7. In the Moriori genealogy, Tiki begat Uru, Uru begat Ngangana, Nga- ngana begat lo, lo begat lo-rangi, &

and

lOWAHINE (myth.), the first woman. She was made by Tane, and given to Tiki-au-aha, the first man. They had six children — ^A. H. M., i. 158

Unfortunately, this source doesn't include an entry to Tel lo Ora, although Tiki-au-aha does sound a bit like Tel lo Ora (especially after a couple of glasses of wine). Maybe one term is Hawaiin and the other Maori. I'm starting to wonder if these are actually the same god, one being the Hawaiian and one being the Maori-Polynesian. I went ahead and added a link to Io Matua Kore to the See Also section Kiho-tumu, not based on my research here, but because the Io Matua Kore article already included a link to the Kiho article in the See also section, so I simply referred back.Coastside (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:29, 30 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.

Autoconfirmed[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect Autoconfirmed- Unneeded, cross-namespace redirect. EthanGaming7640 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I almost never !vote to keep XNRs to projectspace. Almost always, they're useless, because the only people who would think to type them are people who already know to put WP: or Wikipedia: before the title. However, XNRs like this can be useful if it's a term that a non-editor reader or that a brand-new editor may have heard, such as Your first article or Administrators' noticeboard. "Autoconfirmed" appears in some reader-facing messages about semi-protection and other restrictions, so it's plausible that a non-editor reader or a brand-new editor might want to search the term and wouldn't know to type "Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternativley Wikipedia#Restrictions could be a reasonable target if we want to point searchers to article content on the topic. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. This is a term that people unfamiliar with namespaces will be looking up, and with no suitable article-space target to hatnote, the crossnamespace redirect is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 4 October 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.

Template:OTD[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this to be a shortcut to the OTD section of the Main page, not to go to {{Update}}, which isn't really "on this day". Could we retarget to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date? There will be a few transclusions to fix, but it's not used widely. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "OTD" is short for "OuTDaTeD". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and delete Invented abbreviations like this make Wikicode even harder to read. That is not worth the minimal benefit of saving four keystrokes for an editor who adds this to an article. Just type out the word {{Update}} in full. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this template redirect should not exist as-is. It's confusing for "OTD" to near universally refer to "on this day" everywhere on Wikipedia except as a template shortcut, where it refers to something else entirety. Not sure where it should target though, as I see it there are two sensible targets - Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date and Template:On this day, not sure which is better. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. "On This Day" is the essentially universal meaning of OTD on Wikipedia so any other target would be confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 4 October 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.

2006 Major League Baseballl season[edit]

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 03:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible error; creator has since been blocked as a sockmaster. Hog Farm Talk 14:53, 30 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.

Yasaul[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#Yasaul

Three Brothers River[edit]

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 03:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not mentioned at the target section or elsewhere in the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No mention at target or anywhere in that article. No mention in Portuguese wiki article either. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. pt:Estiva (Minas Gerais) does mention a Three Brothers River (rio Três Irmãos), but that's in a different state from the Pantanal. On English Wikipedia we have nothing by this name, the closest thing we've got is the Três Irmãos Dam. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 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.

PicSing a Broken Song[edit]

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. WP:G5 - ParillasAndrie Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is just a segment of Everybody, Sing!. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:09, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_30&oldid=1049563967"