< August 19
August 21 >

August 20

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)

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]

  • ...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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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]
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

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]

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]
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

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]
  • @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

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

Specific city

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

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

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]

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"

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]

  • 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]
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

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

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

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

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

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

Other symbols

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]

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]
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

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 - 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]
  • @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]
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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
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]
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

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]

  • (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]
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

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

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]

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')

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]

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.
More