Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 8, 2021.

Hoot the Owl[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 no consensus. After almost a month of discussion and two relistings opinions are about evenly split between keeping, deleting and retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this character in the target article. 4 views in the last 90 days, so it's not a popular redirect either. – numbermaniac 03:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks like this is indeed a character in the video game [1][2][3]. Can't exclude that it will be mentioned as some point. JBchrch talk 13:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the general trend of deleting articles on unmentioned minor video game characters with low pageviews. Furthermore, Google suggests that a number of entities have used this (rather generic) name, but at the same time none worthy of a DAB. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This character is not mentioned in the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Giggle and Hoot - the Hoot refers to Hoot the Owl and a google search tells me this is a more plausible target. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 8 July 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.

Quidditch teams[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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these teams are mentioned in the target article or anywhere else I've seen. Some of them previously targetted British and Irish Quidditch teams or List of Quidditch teams but those articles were redirected to the main article in 2007 citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Notability. The "Professional Quidditch teams" section some of them target was removed from the article with this edit by MissTimeturner in February 2017, which also removed the mention of these teams. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It's extremely unlikely any reader would be searching on these fictional teams and be sufficiently unfamiliar with quidditch to look to that article in the first place. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 8 July 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.

School leavers[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. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had not heard this term before, but Collins says that it's the British equivalent of the American "high school graduates". High school graduate points to Secondary school, so I think this should too. School-leaving age is also of note, but seems broader-concept than may be wanted. (For whatever reason, only the plural form has been created here; if the singular form hasn't been created by the end of this RfD, I'll create it and sync it with however this is closed.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity 18:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhh signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhh not so loud. This is the sort of thing I can see us potentially having content on, but it appears we do not so deletion is the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 20 July 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.

01189998819991197253[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#01189998819991197253

050-18-2965[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 23:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete! WTF, this is purportedly the social security number of the subject of the targeted article. [4]. Yes, he'd been dead for nearly twenty years when this redirect was created, but why would we ever have individuals' social security numbers or other personal information used as a redirect? TJRC (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, if you (or anyone) comes across social security numbers or similar for living or recently deceased people, please contact the oversight team. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually started down the oversight route, once I saw what it was. But the ssdmf.info page linked-to in my comment above attributes its source as the Social Security Death Index, apparently a public (or at least publicly-available) document; and oversight refers to "non-public personal information". Still, I have no objection to it being oversighted just on general principles. TJRC (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight this immediately. Unless it's the Lifelock CEO guy, which this isn't. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloustein has been dead for 32 years. If this were OSable, I assume that Thryduulf (an oversighter) would have suppressed it on the spot rather than leave the above comment. That said, this serves no encyclopedic interest unless there's been substantial commentary specifically on Bloustein's SSN, and there may well remain a nonzero privacy interest for his estate; just because something is theoretically public doesn't make it ethical to repeat, at least not without good reason. In light of that, strong delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dead or no, nothing good can come of this. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:48, 9 July 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.

645FF040-5081-101B-9F08-00AA002F954E[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 23:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, looks like trash. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 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.

979-0-9016791-7-7[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 23:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISMN only mentioned in "References" section. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 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.

978-0-61-844670-4[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 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is formatted like an ISBN (including 978 "Bookland" EAN prefix), although with nonstandard hyphen-delineration. However, it's not the ISBN listed at the article, and Special:BookSources/0-618-44670-4 says it's invalid. Even if it were valid, though, maintaining redirects for every ISBN would be extremely WP:COSTLY. As long as the ISBN is mentioned in the article, Special:Search should send readers that way anyways, or they can use the aforementioned BookSources. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a database of ISBN or related product numbers. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Tamzin's findings --Lenticel (talk) 08:25, 9 July 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.

Free food[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 23:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of free food at the target, I think deletion is in order. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 8 July 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.

2021–22 Danish 2nd Divisions[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 2021–22 Danish 2nd Division. ✗plicit 03:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect, Danish 2nd Division is now a single group, 3rd Division created as new Danish 4th tier. Santiago Claudio (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 8 July 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.

Sitcom, A.L.F.[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 14:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, malformed title. Unlikely search term, and I am not aware of any other sitcoms with this format. Averages 2 views a month so not exactly a prime target. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:39, 8 July 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.

Effective power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Effective power

Radiogrill[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 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redirect page due to Walmart. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC) — KamranBhatti4013 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Safi Bhatti (talk · contribs). [reply]

  • Delete Added Radio Grill. These pointed to a short-lived section in the target article: it was added to the article in July 2008, expanded somewhat thereafter, and removed in September 2008. FWIW the section was reasonably well-sourced (particularly by the standards of 2008), though pretty clearly there's no other article where it would work as a subsection, nor was there not enough material there for us to expand this redirect into its own article. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging nom as a sock. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 8 July 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.

Miami tower collapse[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 withdrawn. Given the high pageviews for this redirect and its current-events relevance, I don't want to leave an RfD open if there's no real chance of it being deleted/retargeted. The question of hatnoting can be decided at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY situation: Could also refer to the WCIX TV Tower collapse in 1992. Since neither tower is actually in Miami, I think deletion makes more sense than targeting one or the other or DABbing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a hatnote. This exact title has been very widely used in news reports about the event so even it is technically incorrect it's a very plausible search term with an overwhelming primary topic. Deletion would make it harder for readers to find the article they are looking for so would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ideally as a disambiguation page, rather than adding a hatnote to this heavily read article. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow that logic - why is taking lots of people via a disambiguation page better than a few people going via a hatnote? Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no hatnote required. Was the collapse of WCIX TV Tower known as Miami tower collapse during the time (or ever) ? Jay (Talk) 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling "miami tower collapse" "WCIX" produces no results so Google automatically removed the quotes. The top hit was List of catastrophic collapses of broadcast masts and towers, the second and third were news reports about the Surfside condominium by WCIA, the rest of the first page is a nearly even mix of results for the two separate events. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote as a plausible search term used widely by the media. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't add hatnote WCIX tower was destroyed in a storm. I don't think most people would say that a building which was destroyed in a hurricane "collapsed"; that word has a completely different connotation. Therefore, I do not think that anyone would search for that tower with this search term. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this logic. Collapse means "fall down or in", while the TV tower was blown over. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:36, 9 July 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.

Miami building collapse[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are four collapses in Miami listed at List of structural failures and collapses—not including the current target, which is in Miami-Dade County but not in Miami itself. As with the others, we could retarget to the list, but personally I lean toward deletion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' as the current primary topic for the highly plausible search term, but add a hatnote to the list created per the following nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add hatnote as plausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:59, 8 July 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.

Florida building collapse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Florida building collapse

End this war[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 11:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows that this has been used as the title of a number of non-notable works, and someone searching for one of them is likely to be surprised by this redirect. Even if it's a phrase worth targeting to some concept, I don't think there's a clear primary target—could be the current one, could be anti-war movement or a specific subset of it, could be the war to end war. Was created with the summary "pun?"; if there is a pun here, I'm missing it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason? The Iraq War is not the first 'long' war, the phrase is not mentioned at that target, and a google search of the phrase comes up with nothing but mobile app results. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remember where I saw this particular "catchphrase/slogan" as AngusWOOF calls it. It was in the context of the Iraq War and protests against it. Tamzin seemed to confirm this. I have no idea if the idea to change "endless war" to "end this war" for anti-war signs and merch happened prior to that war but seeing as there was the article Protests against the Iraq War already, it is the best fit to my knowledge if someone comes to Wikipedia to check where they saw the sign "Endless this war". UserTwoSix (talk) 21:13, 14 July 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.

Poncho Libre[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 11:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible typo. Google shows no instances of the term being confused, just a single case of one game making a pun about it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence these terms are connected or confused. "Poncho Libre" comes up with some results on the Google, but not related to Nacho Libre. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches point to a product in the Dakine clothing brand, not mentioned in the page though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:04, 9 July 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.

2021 condominium building collapse[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. ✗plicit 11:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While a less ambiguous search term than 2021 building collapse (and thus listed separately), there are still three other shared residences listed under 2021 at List of structural failures and collapses#2020–present. I'm not sure if any would meet the definition of a "condominium building"—a term mostly used in the U.S.—but it's similar enough that I feel that these search terms are too ambiguous and should be retargeted to that list or deleted, per my rationale below. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep currently unambiguous as a search term, as it's the only notable collapse this year of a building known as a condominium. This can be revisited if another one collapses (although for obvious reasons I hope that doesn't happen). Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Jay (Talk) 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at the RfD for #2021 building collapse, though I feel (only slightly) less strongly about this one because of the additional disambiguation. General Ization Talk 17:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:01, 8 July 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.

2021 building collapse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#2021 building collapse

Look of Love (film)[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 The Look of Love (film). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link should be re-targeted to The Look of Love (film) for the rather obvious reasons of consistency and lack of astonishment. Anyone looking for a film of that name should not get the right or wrong one based on whether they used the definite article or not. (The redirect is also a search suggestion.) Furthermore, the redirection name is only the working title of the current target film (per The Look of Love disambiguation) and is not even mentioned anywhere on the current target page. 84.250.167.86 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Common sense, could probably be done without RfD, especially since the current target article doesn't mention the alternate title. Also, @84.250: Please remember to tag redirects with {{subst:rfd}} when nominating them. I've done that for you here. Thanks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:02, 8 July 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.

Fixed carbon[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 Carbon fixation. ✗plicit 03:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This originally targeted Carbon fixation but was boldly retargeted to its current target relating to coal. First, I am not sure fixed carbon and char are true synonyms, and the term seems most used in the context of Coal analysis, where it is defined. Retargeting could be considered, but I believe there is no primary topic here and I favor the creation of a disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:31, 8 July 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.

Molecular ion[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 Mass spectral interpretation. Consider this the R in WP:BRD. Discussion may continue, of course, but for now, there is not consensus for this to be changed from its longstanding target. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term is rarely used as a synonym for the current target (though it is correct) but instead is typically used in the context of mass spectral interpretation, where it was originally targeted until it was boldly retargeted to its current target. I think mass spectral interpretation is the primary topic here and should be retargeted there with hatnotes on both pages. Ideally, the term would be disambiguated at Molecular ion (disambiguation) as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if retargeted, I'd be happy to go through all the incoming links and adjust as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support re-targetting to the MS meaning as likely PRIMARYTOPIC. Not sure we need a (dab) page that doesn't already exist if there are only two meanings and the primary one has a hatnote to the other. DMacks (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC) ...or create own article (see my comment below). DMacks (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But EI is merely one ionization technique, and in fact is one where it is difficult to observe a molecular ion for many compounds (e.g., alcohols) due to extensive fragmentation. Softer ionization techniques such as electrospray ionization more consistently yield a molecular ion. Thus I think a broader target for the MS meaning is needed, and the term is fairly well defined and discussed at mass spectral interpretation, but I'm open to other suggestions. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other methods, we often also see [M±X] ions as the immediate ionization result (not simply fragmentation of an initially-formed M+/M–). For example, electrospray can give [M+H]+ or [M+Na]+ not just M+. Our MALDI article calls these "quasimolecular ions", a possibly ill-defined or archaic term (see doi:10.1002/jms.4700). I agree with Mdewman6 that an article that provides the general context/defintion of this thing, rather than one type of apparatus that forms it, is a better redirect target. However, it's a flaw in Mass spectral interpretation that it is only described in terms of EI and only in the positive mode. Maybe we need to off-load it to its own sub-article? GoldBook has three related definitions. DMacks (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a stand-alone article, but another approach would be to expand the interpretation article to discuss more forms of MS. Right now it is really Electron impact mass spectral interpretation, which is logical as those mass spectra require the most interpretation. But probably best to broaden the scope of the article, while keeping all the EI-specific details in appropriate sections. Also, I note that Base peak doesn't even exist, though there is Base peak intensity, which targets Mass chromatogram. I can deal with these in an appropriate manner after this RfD is closed. Also we need more incoming links from mass spectrum and mass spectrometry to these other articles (of course, getting beyond the scope of RfD). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, ESI and APCI rarely if ever give true molecular ions (M+/-) but regularly give M+H or M-H such that these quasi or pseudo molecular ions are referred to as molecular ions in everyday parlance. I have less experience with MALDI but the situation is similar. I think we've at least established that MS is the primary topic. Again, I think the best near-term solution is to expand the Mass spectral interpration article and target there. Hopefully we can get a bit more discussion for a close. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Process note: the only thing that the closer can do is decide among the redirect targets. Creating an actual article (replacing the redirect) is not one of their choices, but instead can be done regardless of RFD outcome. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having no idea about the subject of the redirect and the current / proposed targets, but just going by the arguments above, I find it agreeable to Support the retarget to Mass spectral interpretation, though flawed. I had listed this RfD at that target's talk page, and we can summarize there the path ahead for MS and the redirect. Jay (Talk) 18:46, 17 July 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_July_8&oldid=1035119544"