It is impossible to accommodate here the whole reasoning. The bare-bones underlying misconception in halogen (and related) bonds lies in the oversimplistic nucleophileelectrophile reading of the σ-hole bond model for intermediate interactions between covalent bonds and mere van der Waals contacts. This oversimplification: i) prevents the appreciation of a subtending reaction coordinate (generally an SN2 one); 18,33,49,50 ii) does not allow for the categorization of interactions featuring fractional bond orders; iii) creates counterintuitive interactions; and iv) ultimately aspires to reduce the whole matter to static σ-holes. Moreover, lack of attention to part of the last century's discussion on the matter, notably ideas related to secondary bonds, and unclear relationship with Lewis acid and base alternative nomenclature, were highlighted. Fragmentation of interactions steered by the same basic mechanism into countless names is also potentially detrimental to effective communication. As the present contribution was being prepared, a recent perspective paper by Taylor, criticizing the group-by-group nomenclature of supramolecular interactions, has also appeared. In line with us, Taylor strongly opposes, on both similar and diverse conceptual grounds, both proliferation and usage of the group-by-group nomenclature of supramolecular interactions, further demonstrating the urgency of addressing this issue by IUPAC. As a relevant point for debate, which he also wisely left up for discussion in the community, Taylor propends for σ-, π-(eventually p-) interactions naming. This "hole" nomenclature is not chosen here for three main reasons: 1) it arguably carries strong descriptive power in terms of interaction geometries, but not necessarily in terms of electronic distribution, which is the key point of the present discussion; 2) the case of multicenter bonds was addressed by Taylor suggesting "pericovalent" or "peri-hypervalent" names, stating that further naming attention to this specific "subtype" of interactions might indeed be needed (and we do agree); 3) among "bonded" (whatever we mean by the term) iodine atoms of an arbitrarily large chain there are no holes inbetween atoms. Notice that it is undeniable that hole interactions and multicenter bonds are conceptually linked. We hope that relevant arguments exposed herein, which favor a (possibly equivalent) covalent, ERMB and EDMB description, i.e. -regardless of names -a description that directly conveys electronic distribution rather than interaction geometry, will also be taken into due account as the community tries to agree on a satisfactory naming scheme.