Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 31

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 23:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Consciousness engineering → Framing (social sciences)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page does not make any mention of engineering, and google suggests it might not be a 1:1 target match. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Fuzheado | Talk 11:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In minecraft → Minecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem to be a reason to include the word "in" here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 4chan meme. Not sure where to put it but it's not directly related to the game --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only usage of this phrase is for a meme that is not discussed in the article—no other reason for "in" to be used. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused, unnecessary redirect with no useful purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be useless. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not helpful. EditorEpic (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 no consensus. There was an overall lack of clarity on exactly what propositions were being made, convoluting the discussion, and an unfortunate lack of participation after the final relist. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Morocz → Salihorsk District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure why this redirect exists - no mention on destination article. This is a Hungarian surname, so it is a likely search term that should not be silently redirecting to a place in Belarus. asilvering (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sluch' (Belarus) Sluch (Belarus) as {{R from subtopic}} and {{R with possibilities}}, which I've just expanded to mention this topic. It is the Polish name of the Moroch River [Wikidata], which meets WP:FORRED here since it was one of the features formerly used to define the Polish-Soviet border in the Treaty of Riga. We have one article about a Hungarian man with this surname (Tamás Mórocz), but the river is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT compared to a {{R from surname}}. There also seems to be a village by this name in Salihorsk District [1] but it's not mentioned anywhere in English Wikipedia. 59.149.117.119 (talk)

  In this case isn't it better to delete the redirect entirely? Sluch (Belarus) will show up in the search results, now that you've added to that article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case I think it's still better to keep the redirect for now, given that the search results leave it buried under the barely-notable musician and a bunch of citations to authors with the surname. But I agree deletion is a better option than the status quo or an {{R from surname}}. Let's see which option other editors support. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morocz is only linked to in the WWII article Operation Hornung. The village has an article in 5 languages, including Polish, but with only 137 inhabitants not really notable. I propose to change the link in Operation Hornung to Morocz (Salihorsk District) which would be a link to Salihorsk District.Filiep (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCPLACE suggests the form Morocz, Belarus, or if that's not disambiguated enough, Morocz, Minsk Region (including Region to disambiguate from the city of Minsk). I'd be fine with either. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect to Morocz, Belarus per Skarmory and retarget per IP. I understand the IP said later to "keep the redirect" but I think he may have meant to retain the redirect at the suggested target of Sluch (Belarus). Removal of the page at the title of Morocz will ensure that search results are helpful, per IP. Jay 💬 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sluch (Belarus) per the IP above. There's no reason to bother moving redirects since there appears to be nothing else worthy of a redirect competing for this title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying my earlier comment, since this discussion is starting to confuse me a little: I was recommending changing the link within Operation Hornung to Morocz, Belarus (or Minsk Region), not moving the redirect to that title. I think my preference would currently be to disambiguate, with Tamás Mórocz, Sluch (Belarus), and Morocz, Belarus, though it's not a particularly strong one. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for consideration of the disambiguation suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Swe-bop → Swedish jazz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, nor is "bop". The only source I could find on this was that it was a derivative of swiss jazz, and not swedish. Would recommend deletion, however. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Wangan Midnight. ✗plicit 23:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Devil Z → Transformers: Super-God Masterforce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Would probably a better redirect to Wangan Midnight, given that it is more associated with that (search engine popularity also leans towards it). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Goaltender(ice hockey) → Goaltender  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to lack of space between title and disambiguator. The title with the current spacing, Goaltender (ice hockey), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although from 2007 it was created as a redirect rather than from a move or duplicate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vichingo → The Equalizer 3#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful: no mention at target. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persian translation of term with no connection to Iran or any of its cultures. Delete per condition 8 of WP:RDEL. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic WP:NOTDICTIONARY, use of redirects as a form of foreign language dictionary. Not qualified for acceptance under WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Largoplazo. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT and Largoplazo. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 as it appears to be a plausible error. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shi Zhao → Emperor Duanzong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Personal name of Duanzong is Zhao Shi, not Shi Zhao. Other emperors from Song Dynasty also don't have such redirects. -Lemonaka‎ 12:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to plausible error Yoblyblob (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Create reverse name redirects for others - that's the solution. Westerns commonly mess up Asian name order. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tapping into oneness → Telepathy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cannot imagine anyone looking up such a term and if anyone did, there is nothing at the target page that would shed any light on it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We don't use random woo-speak for redirects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It likely won't surprise anyone that this is a phrase that is widely used, but it is far too vague to make a useful redirect - results mainly relate to relaxation or meditation (either generally or specific types or techniques of or as part of some type of therapy), ludic dreaming, and rebalancing/enhancing/discovering various "psychic energies" (and similar woo). Notably in the first four pages of Google hits not one was related to telepathy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Speedy Delete, R3 & G7. by User:Ponyo Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Persian Laguage and Literature Academy → Academy of Persian Language and Literature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling of language as laguage. Only other use of this spelling in Wikipedia is in an erroneous quote in Tridu Songtsen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete this erroneous redirect, because of misspelling of language. We have its correct redirect as Persian Language and Literature Academy. — Regards, Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created this redirect, this is now eligible per G7. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MAGA Mike → Mike Lawler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably has something to do with Donald Trump, but the target article does not explain what. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely used derogatory nickname - in fact, mostly seemingly used for Mike Johnson, a completely different politician, making the case for deletion even stronger. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Ser! noted, if the redirect is kept, it should go to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician). The moniker isn't mentioned in the (correct) target article, but it's cited in The Guardian, The Hill, and Politico (potentially others). Though this might be a passing Donald Trump nickname. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ser!'s findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) based on the sources provided by Significa liberdade. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should not be a redirect at all. Neither for Mike Lawler or Mike Johnson. Keeping it is akin to having "Crooked Hillary" redirect to Hillary Clinton Epicradman123 (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RNEUTRAL. Being non-neutral or even derogatory, is not a reason in itself to delete a redirect that is otherwise useful, e.g. Crooked Hillary exists (although it points to the list article where it is mentioned, not her bio where it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If only Trump had started it. Then we could direct to his list of nicknames, but this is Matt Gaetz creation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is not recognizable or relevant enough to be useful as a redirect. Trump gives many people many nicknames, we don’t need to document each one. isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and add an entry to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump - this fits the selection criteria for that list (which includes names made up by Trump as well as those with other origins that Trump has used). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attack redirect, whether it's Lawler or Johnson. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the current target nor the proposed target even use the term a single time, not even in the references section. JM2023 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Before looking, I would have assumed this was referring to Mike Pence. Is MAGA really an 'attack'? It seems like it'd be something these guys are embracing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, retarget, or convert to a disambiguation page. I don't see a single 'delete' argument that holds water. Redirects are intended to be used for common search terms. The fact that some may subjectively consider it derogatory is irrelevant if that's what people are using to search for the topic. There is no requirement for a redirect to be neutral or non-derogatory in order to be useful, and besides the target of the redirect is likely pleased and proud of the nickname, and from that perspective it's neither an attack nor derogatory. Furthermore, there is no requirement for an article to mention all the terms that people might use to find the article. All the 'delete' comments here are nothing more than excuses for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeming attack redirect, per WP:Redirect#D3. The only reason to keep would be if it were widely used, and would tangibly facilitate search results towards Mike Johnson in a way that outweighs D3. However, the nickname has been used mostly by Matt Gaetz, with news articles attributing it to him or otherwise linking it back to him [2] [3] [4]. Apparently, House Democrats have tried it out once, too [5], but I don't think it rises to the level of widely-used at this point to justify the redirect existing. Maybe in a month or two, if it really takes off. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retribution (upcoming film) → Retribution (2023 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. Released about 3 months ago, and the redirect has virtually no page views. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still getting a significant amount of page views. Come back when we're on the order of single digits per week not multiple per day. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An average of less than 2 views a day is not a rationale to keep based on the agreed-upon verbiage of WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment below. UFILM does not say what you think it says. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, Thryduulf... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @InfiniteNexus eh? Please explain why it is problematic to point out when someone is citing a guideline incorrectly? Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one citing the guideline incorrectly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it amusing that every time one of these redirects get nominated, you're the only one who objects with the same old arguments. Time and again, we have seen that most editors do not share your opinion on when a redirect becomes useless, and almost never has consensus been swayed by your dissent. And I shall remind you that if you had agreed to a CSD criterion as originally proposed, we wouldn't be here clogging RfD and going around in circles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per Tavix. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cobweb (upcoming American film) → Cobweb (2023 American film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. Film was released about half a year ago, and the redirect has virtually no page views. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has actually had a resurgence of page views in the last month, it still getting multiple hits on most days which is a long way from "virtually no page views". Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An average of less than 2 views a day is not a rationale to keep based on the agreed-upon verbiage of WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  UFILM says "when the page views have tapered off", it doesn't explicitly state what that means but it's certainly not getting hits on more days than it's not. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  UFILM does not say "when the page views have tapered off". It actually says ...at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off. It is explaining why there is a 30-day grace period (rather than deleting as soon as it's released), it's not a second requirement. For that to be the case, it would have to say something like "...at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, and for pageviews to taper off to minimal levels." -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The point of in order to allow pageviews to taper off. is so that the redirect is not deleted until the page views have tapered off, otherwise there would be no reason to mention them at all. Therefore it is not in accordance with UFILM to delete a redirect before the page views have tapered off. They have not done so in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus agreed to in WP:UFILM is that 30 days is the amount of time to allow page views to taper off. It was not agreed to that page views need to taper off to some specific undefined amount before deletion. You're still reading into the clause something that is not there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per Tavix. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UFILM and nom. The Night Watch (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 14:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Methylene iodite → Diiodomethane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the names are similar, this target refers to an iodide and not an iodite. In fact, there are no individual pages on Wikipedia about iodite compounds (beyond the general Iodite), due to the fact that they decompose so rapidly. Because of this, the "iodite" in this particular title is misleading. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as chemically incorrect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as potentially confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. As best as I can tell, this is a misspelling of methylene iodide, a synonym for diiodomethane. I found no usage of "methylene iodite" as a synonym for diiodomethane; however, it's possible to hear "iodide" as "iodite" when spoken so this is a plausible misspelling for the purposes of searching. ― Synpath 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness: Google scholar returns roughly 15 results searching "methylene iodite" used mostly in the context of separating out zircon or other grains from crushed rock as some density gradient technique that includes bromoform (not my area of expertise). In other words, they're definitely not using some exotic oxidized iodine compound. ― Synpath 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to being incorrect, confusing, and misleading. Iodite is a real thing, so having this redirect misleadingly implies this is an alternative name for the compound when it's not. The correct methylene iodide exists. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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