 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.png){kind=small}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge into Variations of red. Slon02 ( talk) 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As we recently saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thistle (color), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CG Red and similar recent AfD's, many of these color stubs aren't notable enough to have their own articles, and should instead be redirected/merged into larger articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra cotta (color) (an old AfD, but relevant to this particular type of color article) suggests merging color articles of a particular thing into articles about that thing. I propose merging this article into Sequoia sempervirens, which is the article on the redwood tree, the only source of this color.-- Slon02 ( talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I don't think the natural place to merge this into is an article on the tree. It seems to have only a connection in name and a distant correlation to the wood's color. It would, to me at least, be out of place in an article on the species.
Rkitko (
talk)
19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, it could be merged into either Brown#Variations of brown or Variations of red#Notable shades of red (with me leaning towards the latter).-- Slon02 ( talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the latter is the more natural place to merge this content, if indeed that's the way all of these color stubs are heading. Rkitko ( talk) 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Merge ... into Shades of brown? - This color is too minor for its own article. Maybe better to merge into Shades of brown. The question of whether Shades of brown is better or worse candidate than Sequoia sempervirens is a great question, but probably should be held at a higher-level forum, like Wikiproject Colors. Otherwise the converstation will be held multiple times, with inconsistent, varying outdomes. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Merge into Variations of brown or even better yet, Variations of red. Keraunos ( talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: There is a discussion being held here about whether to merge minor colors into articles on the physical objects that they represent or into color-list articles.-- Slon02 ( talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Merging into Variations of Red is also fine by me. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge into Variations of red. Slon02 ( talk) 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As we recently saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thistle (color), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CG Red and similar recent AfD's, many of these color stubs aren't notable enough to have their own articles, and should instead be redirected/merged into larger articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra cotta (color) (an old AfD, but relevant to this particular type of color article) suggests merging color articles of a particular thing into articles about that thing. I propose merging this article into Sequoia sempervirens, which is the article on the redwood tree, the only source of this color.-- Slon02 ( talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I don't think the natural place to merge this into is an article on the tree. It seems to have only a connection in name and a distant correlation to the wood's color. It would, to me at least, be out of place in an article on the species.
Rkitko (
talk)
19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, it could be merged into either Brown#Variations of brown or Variations of red#Notable shades of red (with me leaning towards the latter).-- Slon02 ( talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the latter is the more natural place to merge this content, if indeed that's the way all of these color stubs are heading. Rkitko ( talk) 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Merge ... into Shades of brown? - This color is too minor for its own article. Maybe better to merge into Shades of brown. The question of whether Shades of brown is better or worse candidate than Sequoia sempervirens is a great question, but probably should be held at a higher-level forum, like Wikiproject Colors. Otherwise the converstation will be held multiple times, with inconsistent, varying outdomes. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Merge into Variations of brown or even better yet, Variations of red. Keraunos ( talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: There is a discussion being held here about whether to merge minor colors into articles on the physical objects that they represent or into color-list articles.-- Slon02 ( talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Merging into Variations of Red is also fine by me. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)