Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2016.

Good sleep in bedroom[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems somewhat misleading since the redirect is not the topic of the target article and WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a Wikipedia-notable phrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly amusing nonnotable redirect that deserves deletion. Also per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a guide to how to best live your life. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2016 (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.

Good sex[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that "good sex" isn't defined in the target article, sex isn't exclusive to humans. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ruth Westheimer She had a cable show in the 1980s called Good Sex! basically when talk shows about such subjects were becoming popular. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as plausible article/dab. It seems that an article about the talk show can be created in the future --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This might be okay to delete for now. The redirect called Good Sex! should be created when someone bothers to put that show in the Dr. Ruth article or make its own show. That it wasn't directed to Dr. Ruth in the first place means the editor did not have that in mind. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:59, 7 June 2016 (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.

Good hand[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the redirect's target is a surname list page, this redirect seems like an unlikely typo that is misleading since it is two words. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Oh, just found out that it's a "Neelix redirect". (See WP:G6). Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2016 (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.

Bad sex in literature[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without the word "award", this redirect seems misleading. This redirect sounds like it would redirect to a lost article about its subject, but even then, such an article would probably never be created. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term or redirect term. Someone typing in bad sex will see the award show up as a possibility. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - autocomplete works fine here. shoy (reactions) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (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.

Bad for children[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect and its target don't seem related. Since the target is a phrase, using a possibly unused, uncited, not-so-synonomous phrase could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vague term. Notice Good For You has a dab page because there are songs and shows named as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom, and with Angus' point about the difference with Good for You. Rlendog (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 16:08, 7 June 2016 (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.

Bad energy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 12#Bad energy

Bad faith (existentialism[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, as there's consensus to do so. To answer my own comment, I just conducted a fairly through page view analysis, and this particular redirect should be safe to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo due to missing bracket on the right side. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't qualify for WP:R3 as it wasn't recently created. Even if it was, I'd be wary deleting it via CSD as this type of typo has been kept in the past, usually because of high traffic. Certain websites sometimes leave off the closing parenthesis when externally linked. You can check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 29#Genie (feral child for more info. -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It got rejected from CSD. So I am picking Almost speedy delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Implausible. No more affinity for a missing ")" than any other disambiguated title which makes it WP:COSTLY.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:32, 4 June 2016 (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.

Second largest economy[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since these redirects include the word "second", they both seem ambiguous to a point where they should probably be deleted so that Wikipedia's search engine can provide more help for our readers than being redirected to these redirects' current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2016 (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.

The Trillion dollar club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 12#The Trillion dollar club

Strongest economies[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the redirect's context, "economies" seems ambiguous to a point where the redirect should target a different article or be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (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.

Unpopular pop songs[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unpopular" ≠ "Worst". (Also, the phrase "unpopular pop" is an oxymoron in itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since "unpopular" suggests opinion, and per above... — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (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.

Worst tornados[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Worst tornados

Worst baseball teams of all time[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. Despite the lack of promotion and relegation in North American sports, it's unlikely any of the "worst" teams "of all time" would really be in MLB. --BDD (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball teams aren't exclusive to Major League Baseball. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we have a list of worst baseball teams in other countries or other leagues? Given the popularity of baseball in the US and Canada compared to other English speaking nations I suspect that most people typing this in are thinking about Major League Baseball. But if we have other "worst baseball team lists" this page should dab to those. Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the ambiguity. There are a lot of baseball leagues. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2016 (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.

Worst president[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents are not exclusive to the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be a decent target. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this one, for reasons that no doubt made sense at the time, but I agree now it's too unspecific for a redirect. Delete. Robofish (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague and also not specific to the US. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2016 (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.

Redirects to List of video games notable for negative reception[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) 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Best selling games – The word "game" is ambiguous and may refer to board games and sports. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the "List of" redirects, if there's some other potential. But Delete as ambiguous for the others. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Keep only the basic ones List of worst video games not creative ways to phrase that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These seem harmless to me. Yes, "game" has multiple meanings, but currently there isn't a list of "Worst board games ever", so it's a redlink or a possibly-relevant link. Disambiguation can be created if such a list ever comes up. SnowFire (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could refer to sports games though. It's better if it goes to the general search results. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but there isn't a List of worst sports games article either to find via search! Even if the video games list is right only 40% of the time (to make up a number), the search won't have anything good the other 60% of the time, so why not be direct. Incidentally, searching Google for "list of worst sports games" mostly seems to refer to the above video game topic - really bad sports video games, not specific games-of-sports that are really bad, e.g. Bears 73 - Redskins 0 or whatever. [2] The top 3 hits aren't Wikipedia either, so it's not like this is self-contamination poison. SnowFire (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure they are. They're mostly synonyms are variations of the title. Some of them I can see being a stretch ("Crappy games") but what's the harm? Redirects are cheap, only actively harmful redirects are bad. SnowFire (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2016 (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.

Recent history[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems ambiguous, but I'm not sure if a disambiguation page is useful in this case. For one, the current target doesn't seem to use the phrase "recent history" as a recognized alternative name. Also, in web browsers, "recent history" could refer to recently-viewed web pages. And, there's the matter of Special:PrefixIndex/Recent history. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vague search term, also common enough to be overlinked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 3 June 2016 (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.

Mammals discovered in the 2000s[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 withdrawn by nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect could be seen as misleading since a new species of organism isn't necessarily official described when it is discovered. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree: This seems close enough that the casual browser might not know the difference. Better that they find something (likely what they are looking for) than nothing due to a discrepancy of terminology. -Drdisque (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously useful as a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list does a good job of covering both. I did a little bit of searching but couldn't find any mammals discovered in a different decade but described in the 2000s. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2016 (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.

Mammal discoveries[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Discoveries" aren't exclusive to the 2000s. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Is there even a list of newly discovered animals of any kind being maintained on Wikipedia? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a series of some decent (but probably still incomplete) lists of recently discovered extinct species, e.g. 2015 in paleontology. There are few half-assed lists for recently described extant species, but nothing of decent quality.
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.

New mammals[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "New" seems ambiguous in this redirect. Newly discovered, newly born individual mammals, etc? Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (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.

Recently discovered mammals[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems outdated and will require time-specific maintenance as new articles are created. Also, "discovered" and "described" do not necessarily mean the same since a new species can be discovered before it is described. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's the 2010s already. There should be a list of mammals described in the 2010s. Oh wait, that doesn't exist. What's the point of such a list then? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what does recent mean? Doesn't make any sense if we have lists broken down by decade. Should this have been retargeted on Jan 1 2010 (or 2011) to an empty list for the 2010s? 10 years might be considered recent (stretching back to 2006 right now), or 5 years, or 25 years. Even if a set amount of time is defined, recent will have a rolling cutoff date that doesn't mesh well with decade based lists. Plantdrew (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (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.

Latest stable software release templates/Google Photos[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though this WP:XNR was probably created in error. Doesn't seem like a likely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2016 (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.

Latest bbc three shows[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear, considering that the target is only one TV series. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the redirect simply by moving a badly labeled article, I'd be fine with the deletion. It's not a term that anyone is likely to search for, and even if it were, time destroys the accuracy of the result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (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.

HTcpcp[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 those that haven't already been speedy deleted. The only permutations that will remain is HTCPCP and Htcpcp. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these are just permutations of capitalization that seem like they will never be hit. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. The editor has essentially requested deletion with Special:Diff/723574693. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Unlikely stylizations that clutter up searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved from User talk:RHaworth.

Hi RHaworth, I'm reaching out about a number of CSD G7 cases pending as of now (ones that might be a bit roundabout), and wondered if you'd be able to handle this one. Looking into Special:Contributions/Finnh54, the user created 20 redirects to Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, ~16 of which I RfD here. The user later did this, which I interpreted as a user request for deletion, so I tagged the redirects with G7. Let me know if there's anything in this process I missed, if deletions are questionable, or if I mislabeled anything. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should be 32 permutations. I have just wasted 15 minutes working out which ones Finnh54 (talk · contribs) has missed - the red links in this list:
HTCPCP HTCPCp HTCPcP HTCPcp HTCpCP HTCpCp HTCpcP HTCpcp
HTcPCP HTcPCp HTcPcP HTcPcp HTcpCP HTcpCp HTcpcP HTcpcp
HtCPCP HtCPCp HtCPcP HtCPcp HtCpCP HtCpCp HtCpcP HtCpcp
HtcPCP HtcPCp HtcPcP HtcPcp HtcpCP HtcpCp HtcpcP Htcpcp
I have a good mind to create them myself. Redirects are cheap and somehow the silliness of these seems totally appropriate for the tone of the target article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... all right, haha, understood. I'll retract my G7 tags and restore the redirects. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: There was a recent G7 conflict. The redirects listed above (except possibly HTCPCP and Htcpcp) should either be deleted, or all created. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a point to having any of these except HTCPCP and Htcpcp? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Personally I don't see it. At the current RfD for these, another user did chime in as well. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be introducing our own editorial jokes on the subject. WP:NPOVTITLE AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I appreciate RHaworth's suggestion that they should be all created instead so as to perpetuate the joke, but since the search engine is case insensitive and it's very unlikely any of these would be used as links except themselves as jokes (and probably not in article space) they can safely be deleted. Or not; redirects are WP:CHEAP. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
The stylization permutations aren't even discussed in the article, so I don't see how the variants would be relevant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (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.

Black orange[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, including the variants listed below. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neelix color redirect i'm not sure. Brown is made from red yellow and black. I get why this redirect was made cause red and yellow make orange. But, I don't see orange alongside black in the article. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no sources which clearly use "black orange" to mean this. (There's [3] talking about "black-orange" hair, but it's far from clear that author actually means brown, as opposed to some funny shade of red hair). Most commonly they mean "black and orange" (e.g. stripes) or it's just mis-hits of the form "black, orange, blue, red, whatever color, etc.". (FWIW, first thing I thought of was orange (fruit) which has been blackened/burnt in a pan or the oven, but I guess no one uses it to mean that either.) Search results are better than any specific target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no such name for a color or a kind of fruit. Orange and black is common. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course there are several variants of this. If this term gets deleted, the variants should go as well. I have them listed below:
-- Tavix (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I fail to see how any of this garbage is helpful. Past precedent is clear for these kinds of Neelix-created redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all WP:G6 - we've been down this road with Neelix's unusual colour constructs before. Established consensus is that if they aren't a match for an established colour which we have an actual description of (like blue-green or seal brown) then they get deleted. No need for more discussion here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also I preemptively oppose retargeting any of these to Orange Is the New Black. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (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.

Marilyn Manson discography[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 move over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be retargeted to Marilyn Manson#Discography? The current target is a discography of the band, whose article is located at Marilyn Manson (band). If consensus is found to keep the current target, an RM request should be started to move the article over this redirect to remove unnecessary disambiguation. SSTflyer 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate due to the lead singer and the band having the same name. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2016 (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.

Light Goldenrods[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 Goldenrod (color)#Light goldenrod. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be retargeted to Goldenrod_(color)#Light_goldenrod because flax is not light goldenrod. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. No mention of light goldenrod color in flax article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - i just found another light goldenrod redirect to flax, and added it to the nomination. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2016 (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.

Golden white[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Neelix redirect i'm not sure. The flax article says its a yellowish-grey color, but flax can be found in the Shades_of_white#Flax article. Which one is right? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned at target, which means our attempt to match colors would be original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:02, 3 June 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:WARALERT[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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All but orphaned redirect to WP:AN/I, unlikely to be used in the future. — xaosflux Talk 00:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, the template requires substitution and a redirect would be broken. Retarget per above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2016 (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/2016_June_3&oldid=1088282780"