Talk:Other/Archive 1

Archive 1

Leave this page as a redirect

This page should likely be kept as a soft redirect to wiktionary to avoid any templates listing "Other" linking to an incorrect page. Any page with a similar title should be created as Other (insert specific field/qualifier here), per MOS:PRECISION. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The error would then lie with the templates, not this page. We don't have Green soft redirect to Wiktionary simply because other templates or pages are imprecise in their linking. If you want this change to hold, you might instead want to propose that your Wiktionary redirect is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Other (disambiguation). 9³ 20:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

On top of that, you should get to work on ensuring these pages, many of which linked to Other (philosophy), now link to the correct location, or your move will have caused more problems than it solved. 9³ 20:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Page Other has many incoming links from a recently developed habit of using the word "other" as a verb ("to make into an other", "to treat as different or separate; segregate; ostracise", "to label as "other"". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the incoming links are not about the verb, but are about one aspect or another of otherness. It is simply weird for there to be other (disambiguation) which is inaccessible from other. One of the following options should apply:

1. other (philosophy) should be moved back to other
2. other (disambiguation) should be moved to other
3. other should redirect to other (philosophy) — IMO, this is the least desirable option, although it may be acceptable as a temporary solution while incoming links are fixed, after which the disambiguation page should be moved.

older ≠ wiser 11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging participants in recent related discussions @HapHaxion, 93, Anthony Appleyard, Narky Blert, Andrewa, Necrothesp, In ictu oculi, and DrStrauss: Is a formal WP:RM discussion warranted to move other (disambiguation) to other? Or should the outcome of this discussion be taken as consensus that there is no primary topic? FWIW, I think Other (philosophy) perhaps is poorly titled, as the article is not limited to the use of the term in the field of philosophy. To my eye, that article looks more like a broad concept article and perhaps it SHOULD have been moved back to other. Thoughts? older ≠ wiser 13:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, about half the links to Other relate to Other (philosophy). About a third (the verbal use) relate to Othering. The rest are the usual mixed bag - Other Awards/Languages/Parties etc. where no link is in any way useful. With this amount of confusion, I consider that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that Other should be turned into a DAB page once the incoming links have been cleaned up.

I endorse a very important point made by older ≠ wiser: if Other is a soft redirect, then the DAB page is very difficult for average readers to find; and Wiki is for them, not for those editors likely to participate in this sort of discussion.

As for Other (philosophy) itself, it deals with both philosophical (i.e. as a technical term of art) and cultural (e.g colonial, racial and gender-related) aspects. I suspect that it might need to be split.

I haven't yet seen a problem template. Either there's an alternative which doesn't bluelink, or the word can be nowiki'ed to disable the link. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Narky Blert, Bkonrad, HapHaxion, 93, Narky Blert, Andrewa, Necrothesp, In ictu oculi, and DrStrauss: I have put in a hatlink to Other (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The hatnote is essential if the page is to soft redirect to Wiktionary. But aren't we beating about the bush here? There was a clear consensus at Talk:Other (philosophy)#Requested move 11 August 2017 that there is no primary topic for other, and that the base name should therefore be a DAB. The documentation at Template:Wiktionary redirect/doc reads in part Only use it when: There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and Readers search for it on Wikipedia (my emphasis). Can anyone see this as passing either of conditions one or two of those instructions? The soft redirect is therefore a rather bizarre idea IMO, and the war to reinstate it [1] most unfortunate. If templates link to this DAB that is not a disaster, and should in time be fixed as with any other article linking to a DAB, as per the standard DAB footer. Andrewa (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @R'n'B and HapHaxion: seem to be the primary proponents as keeping it as a soft redirect as seen in the history, perhaps they could explain their rationale here. 9³ 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • That would be very welcome. In particular, I'm interested to know whether they think it is within the guidelines for use of the Wiktionary redirect template, and why we shouldn't fix any wrong links as per normal process, and how and whether they'll ever be fixed if we use this soft redirect. Then we can see whether these arguments are sufficient to overturn the previous consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Which templates exactly

HapHaxion refers above to any templates listing "Other", but does not name any, and having looked hard I can't find any. There are more than 250 and less than 500 articles currently linking to other, but looking at the first few dozen I found no templates to fix and I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time. There was mention in previous discussion of candidates for election being listed as other, so I was particularly looking for these... again nothing.

So while I find the arguments against the Wiktionary redirect convincing in themselves, I've now tentatively concluded (to my great surprise) that the one argument in favour of it is completely and utterly without foundation.

I could be wrong... examples please? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The one(s) that came up first to me were political templates (election results, etc) where Other was listed as a parameter, rather than a link to the actual page. I can't remember which template it was off the top of my head (I'll see if I can find it though), but it involves a table where the name of the party would be used as a parameter, and the color associated with the party (/meta/color) would be placed in automatically. IIRC, when Other was entered (in the context of many smaller parties' total vote share, since listing them all would take up too much space), it would link to where Other (philosophy) formerly was; /meta/color may have also. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll see what I can find. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find those specific examples I think it's a waste of anyone else's time looking for them. If you feel like doing the required homework and producing them, fine. And otherwise, I'm afraid I think your claims should be quite simply dismissed. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Template:Election box candidate with party link and Template:Election box candidate with party link no change are two. Removing "with party link" does the job. See e.g. United States Senate elections, 1968#Pennsylvania.

Template:Election Summary Party is the other one I found. I had to nowiki "Other" out, see Mebyon Kernow. Narky Blert (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And those are I take it fixed. Any (no pun intended) others? Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

More damage of the soft redirect

If we have the DAB at the base name, then a bot warns users who link articles to it, and we have fewer bad links because most of them are fixed immediately. If we have the soft redirect, this doesn't happen, but the link is just as bad. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RM raised

See Talk:Other (disambiguation)#Requested move 31 August 2017. The bot has also listed it below, but it hasn't removed the previous notice, so it may be a bit confused. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Other (philosophy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Other (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please Supply Redirect ("Other" / "Blade Runner"!)

Hi Team, please supply the "Other" redirect link here ASAP. This will get more urgent as the movie "Blade Runner 2049" approaches release in fall 2017 -- note that the Wikipedia article on the 'root' movie "Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream ..." contains a link referencing "Other" to this Wikipedia page; see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F

- thank you in advance  Bwindsor888 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please Supply Redirect ("Other" / "Blade Runner"!)

Hi Team, please supply the "Other" redirect link here ASAP. This will get more urgent as the movie "Blade Runner 2049" approaches release in fall 2017 -- note that the Wikipedia article on the 'root' movie "Blade Runner: Do Androids Dream ..." contains a link referencing "Other" to this Wikipedia page; see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F Bwindsor888 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)