![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As a "List of..." article (actually, articles), this list must have discrete, objective, sourced selection criteria. As it would be neither possible nor useful to list every color name ever used, the only common criteria that work here would be to list only those colors which have their own articles (i.e., non-redirect blue links). This would remove names created for Crayola, paint brands, etc.
I propose removing those "colors" which do not have their own articles. If there are colors that anyone feels should be included which do not have articles, write the article first.
Thoughts? - SummerPhD v2.0 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Some pruning of this list is in progress. A list of items removed as a result of this pruning can be found at the sub page Talk:List of colors/Colors removed
The preceding section did not get a lot of discussion, but I see no objection to the assertion that this article ought to include (only) names of colors for which there is an existing article.
It has been my observation that this list often see some additions, some of which are outright vandalism, and others of which are well-intentioned but not useful additions if they add a color whose attributes cannot be verified.
I'd like to start a more formal approach to pruning this list.
As an experiment, I'm going to create tables of entries I think qualify for removal or need some other attention. I'll leave them in the table for some period of time (maybe a week), and order to give editors a chance to identify any reasons why the entry should not be removed. After enough time as elapsed, the entry will be removed.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox color}}
or equivalent. Such as
shades of blue#Navy blue. Cheers
Jim1138 (
talk)
04:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC){{
cot}}
/{{
cob}}
section? I could extract the ones I have simply deleted.{{
Colort/Color}}
entry and do the minimum such as changing the RGB display values and maybe guessing at the rest. As Colort/Color will do the calculations, why not just have the RGB values in the tables and let Colort/Color do the conversion. That way errors are minimized.@
Sphilbrick: I notice that {{
List of Colors lede}}
was broken out of List of colors. The text appears to have been change from "color" to "colour" before being broken out. I propose to change the spelling to "color" per
wp:ENGVAR. Spelling should be consistent with the title. It is transcluded in the three list of colors A-F, G-M, & N-Z. Opinions?
Colors considered for deletion A–Al
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The final column should either simply identify the date that the entry has been removed from the list, or the date that proper support has been identified or created to justify retention in the list. That step should include a double check of the attributes, on the chance that location of a proper source or creation of an article has different attributes than currently listed in the table.
|
The source for Absolute Zero: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/ccolor39.htm simply states that it is the same color as List of colors: A-F Blizzard Blue which links to List of Crayola crayon colors#Fluorescent crayons. That references http://www.crayoncollecting.com/index.htm which states nothing about Blizzard Blue. http://www.crayoncollecting.com/B-colors.htm defines Blizzard Blue as:
Is this wp:V? Or should all of those be removed? Jim1138 ( talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Add comments here
This site does identify the color coordinate value #F2F0E6 with alabaster. However, subject to further investigation, that leaves us with the odd situation that the company who chose this color as color of the year assigns different attributes than other sources. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Add comments here
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The final column should either simply identify the date that the entry has been removed from the list, or the date that proper support has been identified or created to justify retention in the list. That step should include a double check of the attributes, on the chance that location of a proper source or creation of an article has different attributes than currently listed in the table.
Colors considered for deletion Am–Am
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 12:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on some feedback from some other editors, I'm going to try a new approach. Rather than examine each individual entry and identify potential problems, I'm going to try a triage approach. Roughly speaking, I think there are three types of entries, the first of which can be removed after a brief review, The second of which will require a little more review and may may be retained supporting documentation can be found, and removed if it cannot be found. The third type will require some more in-depth review and a determination of what to do if there are supporting references for the name of the color but not for the color attributes. I will list three types in the sections below and then follow that with a first pass at identifying entries qualifying as type 1
Subtype 1a - Entry does not have a link to an associated page. (There aren't many of these because typically if an editor adds such an entry to the list, some other editor will notice it and remove it.)
Subtype 1b - Entry has a link to a Wikipedia article, but that while may be an article to a related subject, it does not contain a discussion of the color.
Add to a list. Add a note to the linked article mentioning the plan for removal. Let the list set for a few days on the chance that an editor will realize that there actually is an article talking about the color and the link was poorly chosen or nonexistent.
After waiting a few days, remove the entry.
The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article (or a section of an article) discussing the color. However, the discussion of color is not supported by reliable sources.
Note: the ideal linked article or section of article will contain reliable sources for both the name of the color itself as well as the associated attributes. We may have to discuss what action we would take if the name of the color is well supported but the attributes are not.
Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the discussion of the article and/or the attributes is not sourced. References should be tracked down and added in any event, but if that does not occur, the entry will be removed from this list. Editors can optionally take whatever action they feel appropriate at the linked article if no supporting references are supplied.
The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article or section of an article in that article has sources supporting the existence of the name of the color as well as the attributes. However, the sources themselves are questionable and should be challenged regarding the status as a reliable source.
Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the References for the name of the color and/or the color attributes may not qualify as reliable sources. The editor leaving the post may also raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard will leave it to editors of that article to carry out that step. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are reliable no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable but alternative reliable sources are available, no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable and no alternative sources can be found, the entry should be removed from the list and optionally further action should be taken at the linked article.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)@ PaleAqua: I will immediately concede that in terms of: knowledge of color, I'm a neophyte. I'm trying to learn, but when it comes to technical issues such as conversion between color spaces I'm not quite there yet. That hasn't been an impediment in my initiative so far — when I choose to remove a color from a list that is not discussed in a linked article (or may not even have a link to an article), I think I'm on solid ground. However, I've completed the first pass "low hanging fruit", and the next round may require some technical knowledge. I'm happy to learn.
For example, the official UN site makes reference to Pantone PMS 279.
Yet if I go to the Pantone site and search for 279, the response is: "We matched 6 colors to your query. Click on the color for more detailed information."
Which is followed by references to:
That leads to the obvious question. As someone claims that the official color is Pantone 279 do they mean one of the six colors or is it more complicated? If you click on the links to those six colors each one of them has a hex code:
None of which matches the hexcode used in the current list:
Any light you could shed would be most welcome.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As a "List of..." article (actually, articles), this list must have discrete, objective, sourced selection criteria. As it would be neither possible nor useful to list every color name ever used, the only common criteria that work here would be to list only those colors which have their own articles (i.e., non-redirect blue links). This would remove names created for Crayola, paint brands, etc.
I propose removing those "colors" which do not have their own articles. If there are colors that anyone feels should be included which do not have articles, write the article first.
Thoughts? - SummerPhD v2.0 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Some pruning of this list is in progress. A list of items removed as a result of this pruning can be found at the sub page Talk:List of colors/Colors removed
The preceding section did not get a lot of discussion, but I see no objection to the assertion that this article ought to include (only) names of colors for which there is an existing article.
It has been my observation that this list often see some additions, some of which are outright vandalism, and others of which are well-intentioned but not useful additions if they add a color whose attributes cannot be verified.
I'd like to start a more formal approach to pruning this list.
As an experiment, I'm going to create tables of entries I think qualify for removal or need some other attention. I'll leave them in the table for some period of time (maybe a week), and order to give editors a chance to identify any reasons why the entry should not be removed. After enough time as elapsed, the entry will be removed.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
infobox color}}
or equivalent. Such as
shades of blue#Navy blue. Cheers
Jim1138 (
talk)
04:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC){{
cot}}
/{{
cob}}
section? I could extract the ones I have simply deleted.{{
Colort/Color}}
entry and do the minimum such as changing the RGB display values and maybe guessing at the rest. As Colort/Color will do the calculations, why not just have the RGB values in the tables and let Colort/Color do the conversion. That way errors are minimized.@
Sphilbrick: I notice that {{
List of Colors lede}}
was broken out of List of colors. The text appears to have been change from "color" to "colour" before being broken out. I propose to change the spelling to "color" per
wp:ENGVAR. Spelling should be consistent with the title. It is transcluded in the three list of colors A-F, G-M, & N-Z. Opinions?
Colors considered for deletion A–Al
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The final column should either simply identify the date that the entry has been removed from the list, or the date that proper support has been identified or created to justify retention in the list. That step should include a double check of the attributes, on the chance that location of a proper source or creation of an article has different attributes than currently listed in the table.
|
The source for Absolute Zero: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/ccolor39.htm simply states that it is the same color as List of colors: A-F Blizzard Blue which links to List of Crayola crayon colors#Fluorescent crayons. That references http://www.crayoncollecting.com/index.htm which states nothing about Blizzard Blue. http://www.crayoncollecting.com/B-colors.htm defines Blizzard Blue as:
Is this wp:V? Or should all of those be removed? Jim1138 ( talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Add comments here
This site does identify the color coordinate value #F2F0E6 with alabaster. However, subject to further investigation, that leaves us with the odd situation that the company who chose this color as color of the year assigns different attributes than other sources. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Add comments here
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The final column should either simply identify the date that the entry has been removed from the list, or the date that proper support has been identified or created to justify retention in the list. That step should include a double check of the attributes, on the chance that location of a proper source or creation of an article has different attributes than currently listed in the table.
Colors considered for deletion Am–Am
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- S Philbrick (Talk) 12:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Based on some feedback from some other editors, I'm going to try a new approach. Rather than examine each individual entry and identify potential problems, I'm going to try a triage approach. Roughly speaking, I think there are three types of entries, the first of which can be removed after a brief review, The second of which will require a little more review and may may be retained supporting documentation can be found, and removed if it cannot be found. The third type will require some more in-depth review and a determination of what to do if there are supporting references for the name of the color but not for the color attributes. I will list three types in the sections below and then follow that with a first pass at identifying entries qualifying as type 1
Subtype 1a - Entry does not have a link to an associated page. (There aren't many of these because typically if an editor adds such an entry to the list, some other editor will notice it and remove it.)
Subtype 1b - Entry has a link to a Wikipedia article, but that while may be an article to a related subject, it does not contain a discussion of the color.
Add to a list. Add a note to the linked article mentioning the plan for removal. Let the list set for a few days on the chance that an editor will realize that there actually is an article talking about the color and the link was poorly chosen or nonexistent.
After waiting a few days, remove the entry.
The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article (or a section of an article) discussing the color. However, the discussion of color is not supported by reliable sources.
Note: the ideal linked article or section of article will contain reliable sources for both the name of the color itself as well as the associated attributes. We may have to discuss what action we would take if the name of the color is well supported but the attributes are not.
Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the discussion of the article and/or the attributes is not sourced. References should be tracked down and added in any event, but if that does not occur, the entry will be removed from this list. Editors can optionally take whatever action they feel appropriate at the linked article if no supporting references are supplied.
The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article or section of an article in that article has sources supporting the existence of the name of the color as well as the attributes. However, the sources themselves are questionable and should be challenged regarding the status as a reliable source.
Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the References for the name of the color and/or the color attributes may not qualify as reliable sources. The editor leaving the post may also raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard will leave it to editors of that article to carry out that step. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are reliable no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable but alternative reliable sources are available, no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable and no alternative sources can be found, the entry should be removed from the list and optionally further action should be taken at the linked article.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)@ PaleAqua: I will immediately concede that in terms of: knowledge of color, I'm a neophyte. I'm trying to learn, but when it comes to technical issues such as conversion between color spaces I'm not quite there yet. That hasn't been an impediment in my initiative so far — when I choose to remove a color from a list that is not discussed in a linked article (or may not even have a link to an article), I think I'm on solid ground. However, I've completed the first pass "low hanging fruit", and the next round may require some technical knowledge. I'm happy to learn.
For example, the official UN site makes reference to Pantone PMS 279.
Yet if I go to the Pantone site and search for 279, the response is: "We matched 6 colors to your query. Click on the color for more detailed information."
Which is followed by references to:
That leads to the obvious question. As someone claims that the official color is Pantone 279 do they mean one of the six colors or is it more complicated? If you click on the links to those six colors each one of them has a hex code:
None of which matches the hexcode used in the current list:
Any light you could shed would be most welcome.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)