 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Suggest redirect it to iodite
editI suggest that, since this article has almost no content, we make it a redirect to iodite.
I will start this process by copying the content of this article to the iodite article. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Skepticalgiraffe: I support this. In fact, I was part of the way through creating a merge proposal at Talk:Iodite when I saw this. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Great-- thanks. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion
edit@Skepticalgiraffe and The Nth User:, it is true there was very little content at iodous acid as of 2019. However, I'd wager an article for an acid has more "encyclopedic value" than an article for an ion. Not that ions are unencyclopedic, far from it of course, but looking on a macro-scale across Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, more ions redirect towards acids than acids redirect towards ions. In terms of the similar articles to iodite, hypoiodite currently redirects to hypoiodous acid, and bromite currently redirects to bromous acid. The inverse being true here (iodous acid being a redirect to iodite) while well-meaning, seems to be unintentionally surprising, (as the only page in Category:Halogen oxoacids which is a redirect), and therefore I'd recommend pursuing a lengthier page for the acid giving context to the ion, which can be the target of an iodite redirect if desired. Thoughts on this? Utopes (talk / cont) 18:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the meantime for now I'm going to revert the blank, to let the page be seen. After which point, a merge and/or redirect can occur whenever its desired to do so, but I'd recommend bringing content to the page about the acid instead. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)