Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2015.

Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)[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) 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect was previously nominated, but ... it seems that it was kept due to having an edit history. Well, the edit history has now been moved elsewhere so ...

... This redirect should be deleted since it doesn't explain what villains it is meant to exclude, so is thus confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 08:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the reader will in fact find Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog games at the target. WilyD 12:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...But other than what villains? The redirect is a circular reference to itself, and is thus confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2015 (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.

Other primary schools in Dudley and Sedgley[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) 15:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what these redirects are supposed to exclude. Also, the word "Sedgley" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other races[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) 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what type of "races" this redirect is meant to exclude. Also, the current target seems to add a bit of systemic bias in connection to this redirect. In addition, some might think that that the term refers to some sort of professional racing race. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS this is not the U.S. Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 08:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Race, which has all the other races. The current target is obviously no good. WilyD 12:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Race is a disambiguation, and it is nowhere near exhaustive, so Wily's point is incorrect. There is nowhere that defines what "other races" are there and we can't guess what someone is looking for. While the current target defines "other race" in the U.S. Census, I agree with the bias concerns. It's best to leave this red and have someone use the search engine to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague. "Other" doesn't specify the exclusion while "race" can pertain to a wide variety of topics --Lenticel (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2015 (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.

Other decades[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) 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what decades this redirect refers which are meant to be excluded. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the list only includes decades AD/BC and not AH or any other system -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever other decades the reader is looking for, they're going to find. WilyD 12:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if you're looking for them according to the Jewish Calendar. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list isn't exhaustive, so Wily's point is incorrect. We don't know what "other" decades are supposed to mean, and we can't pretend like the target provides the answer when it isn't defined. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2015 (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.

Worbuzz[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) 15:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is recently created by an editor that is trying to get an entry into List of social networking websites about a social network called Wordbuzz. The target article, Social networking service, does not use Wordbuzz in it and I see no reason that it would. This redirect serves no purpose. -- GB fan 16:39, 20 August 2015 (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.

How is paper made[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. Given that NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something totally different was meant. WilyD 09:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target article describes how paper is made. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm second guessing myself a bit. Despite my earlier comment, I don't really want to encourage redirects in the form of a question—and the word order marks this as a question, even without punctuation. How paper is made I would have no problem with. This seems like a pretty fine line, though. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and Rob. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paper Science is red even though I used to study watching its department of, every day. (It is where they send the dull people to do no harm making paper aeroplanes, I suspect.) Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JZCL 12:26, 23 August 2015 (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.

How is glass made[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. Given that NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something totally different was meant. WilyD 09:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target article describes how glass is made. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm second guessing myself a bit. Despite my earlier comment, I don't really want to encourage redirects in the form of a question—and the word order marks this as a question, even without punctuation. How glass is made I would have no problem with. This seems like a pretty fine line, though. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD, Rob and BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTFAQ. Rob13's argument that NOTFAQ applies to articles not redirects is irrelevantif not nonsense: How should someone searching know if a result given by WP is to an article or via a redirect? Our job, at RfD, is to make sure it is WP:RFD#D2 not confusing. Quoting WP:CHEAP I feel is a bit of sticking salt into a woundalso irrelevant: Redirects are cheap because of their mechanical storage, not because of the thought taken to add, delete, or retarget them. They are quite expensive if counted that way. Si Trew (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading mine above, it sounded like a personal attack, which was certainly not my intention, so I've struck my phrasing there. Sorry tro @BU Rob13: if it came across that way. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (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.

Colbert Show[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 dabify and retarget to Colbert Show, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to The Colbert Report or The Late Show with Stephen Colbert just as equally. I think this should be deleted per WP:XY or WP:RFD#D2 since it's kind of a misnomer as there aren't any shows called "(The) Colbert Show." As a second option, this could be retargeted to Stephen Colbert#Television career (assuming no other Colberts have shows). -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, pointing at old show. When new show airs point at that, and at the top of the page include a link to the old. Mathiastck (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index to list both shows; and redirect the other to the list. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig is the correct solution where a search term can refer equally to more than one target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf:. That's not necessarily true. Sometimes deletion is appropriate (see WP:XY) and other times, there is a target that discusses every item that would be in a disambiguation, as is the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (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.

Administrative city[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29#Administrative city

Specific city[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 Cities of South Korea#Specific city. Deryck C. 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to bring up any "specific" cities in South Korea so I'm not sure why it redirects to Cities of South Korea. I wasn't sure if Speedy R3 applied. Savonneux (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2015 (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.

Anal explosion[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, and I need a shower. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason someone did search for this term, the target page doesn't provide any explanation for what it is. There are no significant links to this redirect. I don't think this term would merit its own article either. PriceDL (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2015 (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.

Dr.K.D.Shendge Eng. Med School[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. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term. Just an abbreviated form. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not a med school (medical school) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Eng. Med. School" is a common abbreviation in India for "English Medium School". Abbreviations are plausible search terms, that's why we have thousands of {{R from abbreviation}}s. OTOH this redirect has rather strange spacing & punctuation so I don't strongly support keeping it either. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term; real people use abbrevs. quite commonly. Med is a common abbreiviation for Medium and Medical. WilyD 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD and 58.176.246.42. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Rubbish computer 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be unambiguous per above points. At first glance I read "engineering medical school" but I guess I have a bias. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid alternative spelling or misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other events of "year"[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) 13:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other events of "year" (Arbitrary break)[edit]

Each of these are redirects to their corresponding year article, which can make it confusing if a reader looks up these redirects directly from its corresponding year article ... just to be redirected back to that article. Also, it is not clear what these redirects are referring to in regards to what they are meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to vagueness --Lenticel (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oz\InterAct 07:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It doesn't matter that they are vague as all notable events of the year are covered. The handfull I checked were created because they "appeared to be missing" (likely a WP:TOPRED sort of project) and got traffic. The redirects themselves are harmless and so deletion would not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm that per their edit histories, they were created via WP:TOPRED. But, as I stated above, I disagree that they are not harmful due to them being circular references to their targets, which causes confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as this appears to cause unnecessary confusion. Rubbish computer 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete allI can't see that this is a useful or plausible redirect, and I entirely fail to see what content (say) "Other events of 1952" could usefully contain. Other than what? Events of 1952 that are too trivial to mention? Off with their heads.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WP:TOPRED might have been a reason to create these back in 2004, but the stats are slim to nil now. For example, "other events of 2002" got 3 hits last month, which is probably the lowest number I've ever come across. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other factions of Command & Conquer[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) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what this is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other government agencies[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) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this is meant to exclude. Also, currently targets Government agency, which can cause a confusing search loop for anyone viewing that article then immediately looking up the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other former secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley[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) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other films by Eric Rohmer[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) 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title is not clear on what films are meant to be excluded when this term is searched. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other use[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Other use

Other symbols[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 Miscellaneous Symbols. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the redirect does not make clear what symbols the target of the redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Symbol. Indeed it is meaningless. But don't redirect to some Unicode block, because Unicode does not have any concept of "other symbols" (and we're happy with that). -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode has dozens of blocks containing symbols. There is no "non-"symbol. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De nanda. But why target to your personal pref page, out of 24+? -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode does not have a definition or concept of "symbol" at all (while script is used systematically, i.e. for letters). This is bordering OR. -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "miscellaneous symbols" is simply the name of what the block is called. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A consonant is not a symbol, that is something written, but a sound, something spoken. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I's a redirect, not an article. What is the problem if we just retarget it to symbol? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah OK, 'Retarget to symbol. My (struck) delete argument was essentially WP:XY, but this proposed retarget would not be. Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2015 (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.

Other nonmetal[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. Going through this discussion was not exactly a walk in the park, but consensus is quite clear despite it all. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are unclear about what nonmetals are meant to be excluded when looking up this term. Also, if a reader is reading Nonmetal, then tries to search "other nonmetal" in the search bar, then arrive back at Nonmetal, instant confusion is unavoidable. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what it is about. From here, I'm waiting for the argument to delete the redirect. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We used to use "other nonmetals" as a category on the periodic table (basically everything covered in this article, minus the halogens and noble gases). So the redirect used to make sense, to simply nonmetal. Now, of course, we've phased out the category (which is a bit silly, defining those elements in terms of what they are not), so the redirect looks silly instead. (But maybe it is useful because of all the sites found by Thryduulf's Googling that have taken our old pre-October-2013 categorization?) Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. In that old categorization the "other nonmetals" were: H, C, N, O, P, S, Se. Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - this term appears to be in common use as it was part of the IUPAC periodic table up until 1990, there could potentially be an article here instead. shoy (reactions) 13:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text for this article is at User:Shoy/sandbox. If it is completely wrong, please correct me. It also needs sources if anyone has a hard copy of any that they can reference. shoy (reactions) 19:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, yes, it is completely wrong. It was never part of the IUPAC PT, and the diatomic/polyatomic nonmetal classification is just WP! Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT, I was at least trying to get something written. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that once one fixes it, there is nothing to write about the term. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant fix the sandbox article to make it correct. Best just to get the right words in place and move on. shoy (reactions) 13:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make it correct, one would have to blank it. Otherwise we would have to write a very silly article. "Other nonmetal is not actually a term, but simply means 'nonmetals other than a few exceptions which have been mentioned'. On Wikipedia until October 2013 this appeared in the periodic table legend, as the halogens and noble gases are also nonmetals and were highlighted separately. A few authors copying Wikipedia online unfortunately misconstrued it as being an actual specific scientific term referring to H, C, N, O, P, S, and Se, despite it not making any sense out of context; this is not done by any actual scientists." And it's not even a particularly famous misconception. Why write an article about a misconception approximately nobody makes (really; I Googled some PT pictures, and while I saw the old WP colour scheme, I usually saw the not-quite-accurate "nonmetal" used in place of "other nonmetal"), and about a term used and recommended by no one who actually works in the field? Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. shoy (reactions) 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Double Sharp described, this is an old name for a deprecated category in the periodic table. It was a quite commonly used term, and possibly in other languages it is used (to illustrate it is in use). The nom says "These redirects are unclear ..." - but why should a redirect be clear? The target page should solve that. And, on top of this all, there is no competing target so keeping this one does no harm. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DePiep:, the editor above, Shoy, made a statement that sounds like validation that these redirects might need to be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Is that a possible option? (My knowledge in this field has escaped me over the decades, but from what has been said above, this is a valid term for something ... just not sure how notable it is.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Or maybe add this information as a new section in Nonmetal with the list of elements that Double sharp mentioned above, possibly explaining how the aforementioned elements were part of the group represented by this historical term? Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Shoy made a good comment too, I should have mentioned that. REad it & use it. Then: no way this should be redlinked to support article creation (this is a new argument, right?). From WP:ELEMENTS (with Double Sharp), this category name was deprecated for good reason. It should not be an article. Take that from content-editors. Now why any pushing & pulling on this redirect at all? Let's leave it alone. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then it should not be an article. Understood. However, to the average reader, if they look up this specific term trying to find something, at the present time, they are going to be misled in a couple of ways. For one, if the term "other nonmetals" is truly a term that is used to identify something specific (as stated above), the reader is not going to find this information. And for two, let's say that the reader is currently looking at the article Nonmetal, then wonders "What about other nonmetals?" So, they look up this term in Wikipedia's search bar, then ... for some reason, get redirected back to Nonmetal, which is essentially a circular redirect in place that has a potential to confuse readers. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The term "other nonmetal" was deprecated by WP:ELEMENTS because it is misleading/incorrect/useless/bad-classifying/nonsense. It is empty now, vapor, null, vacuum, nada. Then, there is no need to clarify nonsense. Any Reader searching for "other nonmetal" is helped by the target page. There is no advantage to explain to the reader that s/he is searching an empty nonsense term. The redirect can stay for those searches, no harm done. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again. I disagree since the reader will want to know why they were redirected there, and Nonmetal in its current state doesn't address that concern. I already stated my supporting information for this in my previous statement. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, a redirect does not have to explain why (where did you learn that?). If it did, it would be ... an article with a link. And no, the target page does not have to describe why incoming redirects are redirecting to it. In this case, the redirect title is deprecated and we only help searching readers into the better place. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Through the course of this discussion, the term "other nonmetals" has been identified as a valid topic more WP:PRECISE than the subject at the article Nonmetal. No information is currently present at Nonmetal that identifies or explains the subject "other nonmetal". I'm not understanding how you don't see this as misleading to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 It is not misleading. It is an old term, now leading to the closest best article. You want an explanation (quite understandable, but not on this page), but content editors said that that is not encyclopedic. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...And if there is no place for the term to be explained ... since, once again, it has been proven to be a standalone subject more WP:PRECISE than Nonmetal ... it should be deleted due to being misleading since the redirect and its destination article are providing the reader no information about the subject of the redirect. Long story short, this is grounds for deletion. I have already explained every other aspect of my rationale throughout the course of this discussion several times, so now, I leave this discussion in the hands of the closer unless there has been information provided that shows proof that my concern has been resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I softly re-invite you by Steel1943@, but you're free to leave of course. As am I.
A redirect page is not an article. So it has different standards. In this case: the redirect helps searching readers to the best approaching article. And I do see how that approach could be called "confusing". -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I tend to agree with Steel1943's line of reasoning. Just because a term has been deprecated currently, doesn't mean that users referencing historical information won't need it. (Columbium redirects to niobium, for instance.) As for your question, DePiep, I think it's along the lines of reasoning in WP:ASTONISH, that users shouldn't be surprised by where a redirect ends up (or should be able to easily find out). shoy (reactions) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) This line of reasoning falls in line with my concerns 100%. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re Steel1943, "that concern"? The content WP:ELEMENTS editors obviously have decided that the non-so-useful term did not need to be addressed in nonmetal article body. You know the talkpages where you can ask for that etcetera. But that you want or need an explanation for its (contentual) background is not an argument to delete a redirect. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, your argument is essentially a WP:NOTWIKIA violation since Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia for everyone, not just for viewership and editing by one selective group of specialists. How do you expect the average reader to understand why a specific term for a standalone subject redirects to an article when no information about that subject is present in the article they reach? 21:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talk • contribs)
You are welcome at Talk:Nonmetal. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a notification on Talk:Nonmetal. No more discussion on that page has to take place since we are discussing the redirects, not the article. Also, keep in mind that after the deletion discussion, if these redirects get deleted but the concerns that led to the redirects' deletion get resolved, if the redirects are recreated, they are not eligible for speedy deletion (specifically criterion G4) and can remain. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, glad to learn that. So you are bolding and wikilawyering in one thread/threat? How convincing. Btw, I advise you not to do that in WP:ELEMENTS environment. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD is for the discussion of redirects. Not sure what part of that you are not understanding. Either way, a draft has been created that can overwrite the redirect that identifies the term, so my concern may be resolved. Also, nice WP:BOOMERANG you just threw there. Not sure why you think this discussion is the end-all to the nominated redirects; that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, I have no idea how you interpreted that as any sort of threat; if anything, I was trying to explain to you options that have been established via the community for you in the event this discussion is closed against your opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(personal attack removed) -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete per DoubleSharp and DePiep's arugments that the term/redirect is "silly", "nonsense", "misleading", and "incorrect". Redirects have to be helpful and informational and since the target doesn't address this term, it's confusing and unhelpful. I would change my !vote to keep if the term is explained and this whole conversation would become moot if an article were created over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding condition: That article or mention needs to be sourced for me to support it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the arguments again (and Shoy's too). Then consider: it is a WP:REDIRECT, not an article. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should create an article to explain the term or explain it in the target article. My concerns and Steel's concerns would then be addressed. Until then, my point is valid. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a delete !vote, I said there should be an article there. Those are different. shoy (reactions) 19:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Then you should create an article" - No. If you don't understand the issue, then ask clarification elsewhere. But your non-understanding is no reason to delete a redirect. Now can someone make a start telling us what that "confusion" is, you keep talking about? -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for deletion anymore since a draft article has been made to satisfy my concerns. Thanks anyway though. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you remember & follow your own point, made in this subthread !vote: if you think the redirect title is silly, why now put content in it? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, more information has come forward and I support the creation of an article (assuming it'll be sourced). Before, I was just using the words of the "experts". Am I not allowed to change my mind? -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to you all. This is a proposal to delete a redirect. However, people keep asking for clarification. Well, the fact that a redirect title is unclear to some people is not a reason to delete. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That confusion is not in play here. The nom (or you) may not understand the background, but that is not 'confusion' as in: ending at the wrong article. Not so. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Again... at the present time, it is not a "wrong article" issue; it is a no article exists for this redirect issue since the subject "other nonmetals" is not identified in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is why it is made into a redirect :-). But please explain: what is the problem? -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already did several times. I'll allow the discussion's closer to filter out what's going with that at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but. I already did my best to make the split: what you want to have clarified about the redirect page title is no reason for deletion. Then, what's left does no harm. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • tl;dr; Move Shoy's sandboxed article over the redirect. Call it a dab page if you want. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take the time & keystrokes to give us a link? (and tell us what is your TL;DR-attention span?). -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that as it would fulfill the "condition" of my original rationale. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Ditto Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is what I call confusing. (And does this fit the RfD brief?) -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is plain content editing, it better be discussed at appropriate talkpages. There is a reason this is a redirect page. Actually, it is a bad sign that the proposer did not visit a talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make User:Shoy/sandbox a paragraph in nonmetal, and also get rid of circular redirects. if we can't agree on that then I would have as a second choice having an article at Other nonmetal as per Nominator rationale change/comment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I'm good with this proposal as well. As long as the content is somewhere where these redirects can either target or hold the content as an article, that resolved my concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (Comment withdrawn since the discussion has taken another direction.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Nonmetal § History of nonmetal classification which could be an expanded version of User:Shoy/sandbox. YBG (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided: It now appears that the sandbox is not usable. So here's some thoughts upon reconsideration:
    1. A redirect is helpful if there are links to it elsewhere in WP (but there are no article-space links)
    2. A redirect is helpful if someone might type it into the WP search box or into Google or elsewhere (but this seems highly unlikely)
    3. A redirect is helpful if the topic might one day be expanded into an article (but this seems unlikely)
    If any of these is true, it argues that we should keep the redirect. Them all being not true doesn't necessarily mean we should delete it. So I'm of two minds
    As there is currently no such section, I'm currently leaning delete. YBG (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this was never a legitimate term, and Shoy's info is just wrong (if it was, how come diatomic/polyatomic nonmetals are not mentioned in IUPAC's 2005 Red Book as classifications, even though they were supposedly the replacements for "other nonmetal"?) This was always a term only WP used (and now its one million mirrors). Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I checked the 1971 Definitive Rules from IUPAC (the precursor to the Red Book) – and "other nonmetal[s]" does not even appear once in it. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use shoy's content (to which I've added a statement) either as a standalone page or on the nonmental article and point the redirects to wherever that content is. @Double sharp: it is irrelevant whether IPUAC used/santioned/whatever the term - the term was widely used in the past, and is still occasionally used (based on google results) meaning the term is encyclopaedic and so a redirect or article to where people can learn is required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "widely used in the past" I bet mostly thanks to WP. Also how is "other nonmetal" a term in itself when it just excludes other also-nonmetals (and which ones are excluded can differ – some PTs would give H another colour altogether, some don't bother marking halogens separately, etc.) And don't be fooled by all the Google hits for "other nonmetals" – many of them are like "H combines with other nonmetals" (i.e. nonmetals excluding H itself).
    • Would you have an article on "other languages", on the grounds that the grouping is used a lot by many people when constructing tables about language distribution, and is used in writing by many people in phrases like "how Polish differs from other languages"? Surely not...so how is this any different? Double sharp (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I mentioned IUPAC because Shoy's content says that IUPAC recategorized them into diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals – a claim which is not actually true. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a side note for Double sharp: Based on your comments, I've been half-tempted to change my opinion to "publish the draft to Other nonmetal, but then nominate the page for WP:AFD. If what you state is the case, then, in theory, the draft should not be able to survive a deletion request as an article. (I'm not saying that I'm "actually" saying this right now ... just an idea.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is your position that WP coined this term? shoy (reactions) 13:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a totally legitimate term with a context, as WP used it. But it appears to have been misconstrued by others copying WP literally, not understanding that it needs a context. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would really like some references where the "group" is defined - The "other nonmetals" are used a lot as in sentence like "hydrogen and other nonmetals ..." and in lists too (in books basic books where it has chapters about hydrogen, carbon, etc and other nonmetals). Like our PT used it, different groups of nonmetals, and then the rest. Christian75 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is never defined because it is just a combination of two words that indicates that some nonmetals have been left outside a category that has been previously defined. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I'd AfD it for deletion. Because the nom, and this subsequent talk, shows they do not understand the notion of element categories. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and laugh. "Other nonmetal" is not a now-deprecated term because it was never a term and has never been a term. Categorization of elements is something that individuals or groups of people can do in a very large number of useful ways. "Other nonmetal" is merely the combination of two words to indicate that a categorization scheme was used somewhere that left some nonmetals outside of the categories chosen by that particular person or group. Wikipedia's periodic table categorizes elements using colors, and an "other nonmetal" color was used in the past for the reason given in my previous sentence. The busybody button-making nitwits who began to infest Wikipedia like a disease about five or ten years ago and now hold sway here insisted that every element color must have a link in order to satisfy their obsessive-compulsive need to put things into nice and neat little boxes like the brain-dead simpletons that they are. Oh, we sane folks who are able to accept complex realities and ambiguities had fun back in the day mocking some of their ideas (like having an "ungrouped element" article!). This ridiculous redirect is a holdout from that era and should have been deleted a few years back when the "other nonmetal" color stopped being used at Wikipedia. The unreferenced and daft content at shoy's content doesn't belong anywhere at Wikipedia which probably means it will be emphasized, featured, and honored in the near future. Notify Wikipedia Signpost and apply for a grant. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I did the laugh first. But please now explain: why delete, not keep? -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should only contain redirects that are useful for the user of a general purpose encyclopedia. A person who knows the definition of "other" and has information about nonmetals knows everything that there is to know about the two words "other nonmetals" because it's not a term with any meaning outside the simple connection of the meanings of the two words. Therefore the redirect has no purpose and should be deleted. My view is that this would be the case regardless of how Wikipedia or anyone else chooses to categorize particular elements in particular situations or how anyone chooses to label a particular periodic table. This redirect deletion is little more than a housekeeping matter, but all the drama has been very entertaining and we need to do it again sometime soon. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and assume good faith - I'm with Flying Jazz's rationale (though not their attitude) and Double Sharp that this should be deleted. "Other nonmetals" has no meaning, it's just a subcategorization that we clearly invented, and varies depending on context (WP:RFD#D2, WP:XY). Shoy's made a good effort to solve the problem but creating an article about this is the wrong solution. What if I linked it from an article on diatomic nonmetals? I would be referring to the polyatomic nonmetals as well as the halogens and noble gases, as well as possibly the metalloids. The meaning changes again if I link it from helium: now I'm referring to all the nonmetals that aren't helium. The stats are compelling, there's a reasonable probability this is linked from somewhere, but at the moment we're redirecting to an article which has no information on the subject, because we can't say for certain what the subject is. The only reason that we might keep this is if "other nonmetal" is a real categorization which is (or has been) used by official bodies, but per Double Sharp that is apparently not the case. Yes, I did read the thread this time; my earlier comment was disrespectful to the thoughtful discussion here and I have struck it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, these redirects don't appear to be linked in any articles at the moment. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I stand corrected. shoy (reactions) 17:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You stroke about each and every statement you made yourself. Now please be clear: why should we delete this redirect? -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and a comment. Although Wikipedia wasn't the first user of the term other nonmetals as a category, I've not seen anything on it that would be worth writing about. Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sandbh. It is a redirect page, not an article. We approved of this redirection long ago. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take the last part of my comment back. I think a noteworthy paragraph might be able to be written about the other nonmetals (H, C, N, O, P, S, Se). I'll post something here soon. Sandbh (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue we're considering here on this page is handling this particular two-word phrase in the context of serving users of a general purpose encyclopedia. The issue is not whether a noteworthy paragraph may be written about the seven nonmetals that are neither noble gases nor halogens. Of course many such paragraphs are available in the context of books and websites whose authors have chosen to categorize the elements in such a way as to call those seven "other nonmetals," and similar paragraphs could be written here. If information about that particular set of seven were to be at Wikipedia, it would need to be at a article title such as Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases, and "Other nonmetals" still would not redirect there. A few similar article titles do seem to exist at Languages Other Than English and Military Operations Other Than War where "Other languages" and "Other military operations" do not redirect to those articles. However, those articles exist because they are terms represented by acronyms LOTE and MOOTW. A general purpose encyclopedia would not attempt to exhaustively categorize elements or languages or military operations. As Double Sharp has pointed out, "other nonmetals" requires a context that does not exist in a general purpose encyclopedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. The question here is whether the term "Other Nonmetals" is used sufficiently that a general reader might think it means something more than just "other nonmetals (that is, those I haven't previously mentioned)". If that is the case, then the general reader might be helped to be directed to a section about various nonmetal classification schemes that have found the need to use such an inelegant catch-all category name -- something like the following:
Some classifications of nonmetals include the catch-all category "Other Nonmetals" for elements not otherwise classified. Most commonly this term means "nonmetals other than noble gasses and halogens" (i.e., C, N, O, P, S, Se), but it has also been used to mean ....
I think a brief paragraph like this, as a target of other nonmetals, would be helpful to general users. YBG (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your second sentence, you described it as a term when it isn't, and in your third sentence, you described it as a category name when it isn't. So I've formed the impression that in your first sentence, when you wrote that my point was well taken, it wasn't. But the prospect of someone (almost certainly meaning Sandbh) scouring the literature to find and report the usage of this particular two-word combination with the goal of replacing your ellipses with content (in order to serve the general reader!) is so entertaining that I'm tempted to agree with the entire proposal just to have the joy of watching someone else make fun of it a few years from now. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for encouraging me to re-read your previous comments more carefully. Having done that, I now realize I should have stated things more carefully. My point is that the general reader may read the two-word phrase "other nonmetals" and mistakenly interpret it as a technical term "Other Nonmetals" and go looking for it in WP. When this redirect sends this general reader to a paragraph like the one I drafted, they would come to realize that "other nonmetals" is in fact simply a two-word phrase being used for an otherwise unnamed catch-all category. We may not agree on what should be done with this redirect, but I do appreciate being forced to be more careful in how I explain my thoughts. YBG (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All this still has the notion that "other nonmetals" must be explained somehow. By making the title explicit about 'other', or by describing it in a additional section somewhere. That is not correct. The page is a WP:Redirect, and as such does not require explanation. As it is targeted, it perfectly helps out the reader who for whatever reason searches for this term. Nor is explanation required for content reason(s). Being an incomplete term was a main reason to get rid of it (See WP:ELEMENTS/Archive -- the whole page). Whatever one writes in a section about this term, it would require explanation of the complementary parts again; e.g. describing why it is bad classification. Is would bring us back to square one: explain the rejected unexplainable (maybe classification#Bad classification examples could use this). To be clear, for content reason I object to re-introducing the abandoned classification in nonmetal. The fact that it is such a useless term is the reason it is a redirect, not content. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I address YBG's argument below. You seem to have this ludicrous idea that the Wikipedia Project you rule with an iron fist has the power to create terms from two-word phrases and then deprecate them from terms back to two-word phrases as if the English language itself were computer software that could be designed and then supplanted by Wikipedia Project managers. Your position seems to be that this two-word phrase should not be explained anywhere which is a position where we agree. However, because your Project needed to spend a huge amount of time arguing about it (due largely to your own tendentious mismanagement and lack of ability to parse the English language), the two words must be so important that a reader who types them into a search bar is rewarded by a permanent redirect that reflects your months of most-tendentious glory in deprecating a variable that is now only of note because it was once used in legacy software. We used it as a label in a table. Now we don't. That's all that changed. Get over yourself. Sheesh. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The justification for YBG's current position is amusing because it's based on a premise that no longer exists. As Double Sharp has pointed out, nothing in article space sends a reader to "other metals." YBG's sentence that begins "When this redirect sends this general reader to..." implies that this could take place. Back when "other metals" was used as an element color at Wikipedia, the swarm of invasive button-makers who insisted that all element colors needed to link somewhere used your argument, and they were placated by the idea that a redirect would do something. That argument is moot today because now a reader would need to type "other nonmetals" into the search box, and a result should occur similar to what happens when a reader types in "other languages" or "other military operations." Flying Jazz (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has proposed deletion of a large number of "Other X" redirects, mostly because the "other" is such a useless adjective. This brings a sense of nostalgia for the 16-month 385KB mega-discussion (see WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15 § Megadiscussion summary) that killed Other Nonmetal as a category and turned the article into the redirect currently under discussion. Have a look at the comments in the other redirects listed here, and see if it doesn't remind you of what consumed us from June 2012 to August 2013. YBG (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Steel1943, YBG says it was discussed before by content, (personal attack removed). But by all means: do keep pushing. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are uncalled for, DePiep. I have refactored several of your comments. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2015 (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.

Other left[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. We all agree that the existing redirects are unhelpful and can't agree on a better target. Deryck C. 13:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing term. I've heard of individuals trying to give directions, and then telling someone "Go left. No, your other left", but even at that, it is rather unclear, especially since "left" can refer to more than just direction. Also, Other right doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good find. I agree with this, and will close this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (Withdrawing comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(This is where the conversation ended prior to the discussion being reopened.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? The phrase isn't mentioned there, and I don't think it's at all associated with this specific disorder or condition. It's pretty much just a joke or a quip. Steel1943, will you consider reopening? I don't think this is such a no-brainer. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @BDD: Consider it done, especially since an alternative viewpoint (which I now realize supersedes my previous opinion now that I was able to give the article a second look) has been presented. (I'm also going to nominate Other right for G7 deletion pending the outcome of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a reasonable search term for the condition, despite the phrase not appearing in the section, since it is a common saying, it would serve as a good search term. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reopen. I'd have to say delete right now, given my above concern. I can't really picture this idea being discussed in an encyclopedic manner. Maybe on Wiktionary—there's nothing there now. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no plausibel target. Rubbish computer 17:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither of these are helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2015 (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.

Other games[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) 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is unclear. I'm not sure what type of games this is supposed to exclude if a reader looks up this phrase. Also, confusion is unavoidable if a reader is currently viewing Game, searches for "other games", and arrives back at Game. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2015 (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.

Other Goblins[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) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading since the term "Goblin" isn't exclusive to the Marvel character, and not useful since the reader has no clear answer to what goblins these goblins exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not true, and this is not the Marvel Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as is unnecessarily confusing: this also appears to have no suitable target. Rubbish computer 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's a huge amount of goblins and other such creatures that have been created in fiction, and any one of them could be referred to. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to vagueness --Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2015 (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.

Zipparah Tafari ('Mr Zip')[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 Britain's Got Talent (series 6)#Semi-final 1 (6 May 2012) My apologies I wasn't aware of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 14:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and it's extremely likely he's been long forgotten by now –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned at target, probably not a suitable candidate for a stand-alone article. WilyD 08:55, 20 August 2015 (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/2015_August_20&oldid=1088037104"