The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is only one of a large number of articles, each devoted to a single color on a color chart that I suspect is not notable belonging to a website that I suspect is not notable, xona.com. Is it even clear that the whole list would merit an article on Wikipedia, let alone squandering a whole page on every color on the chart? How does one submit a whole batch of pages for deletion discussion at once? Largo Plazo ( talk) 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. There are many more; at the moment, this is as far as I've gotten with tagging them with the afd1 template:
Davy's grey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arsenic (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charcoal (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Variations of pink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zinnwaldite (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some of them are arbitrary names. Others are commonly used names, but they have been assigned to a point on the color wheel as though they have an exact definition that they don't possess, outside of an arbitrary (and subjective) color naming system that may assign them as such. WP:NOR seems to apply too.
Here's an example of the attitude that has gone into the use of Wikipedia to imply that these color names are somehow official: in the article on Zinnwaldite (color), it says
In the 1960s the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) marketed zinnwaldite colored telephones for offices and homes. However, they described the color as "beige." It is therefore common for many people to refer to the color zinnwaldite as "beige."
The implication is that "zinnwaldite" is objectively speaking the "real" name for this color, and people say the phones are "beige" only because AT&T flouted the "real" term and used "beige" instead—as though otherwise people would naturally have called the color "zinnwaldite". In general, these articles represent an attempt to create specific definitions that don't already, objectively speaking, exist.
Unfortunately, there are also many color articles that began with and/or now contain material that is actually notable information about the color (see Baby blue, for example) but that have been adulterated with these subjective color name assignments. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I acknowledge that some related articles are about colors whose specific values were defined at the outset, such as Mountbatten pink. However, what that means is: A specific color was selected for a specific purpose, and it has been given, or has acquired, a name associated with that selection. It doesn't mean that that name is in any sense an official name for that color. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Original Kelly Green article when it was separate: Keraunos ( talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Here is the beige article with the color chart of colors in the beige range which I originally included in the article: [4]. Obviously, zinnwaldite can be regarded as a shade of beige, but it is not beige, just as Bondi blue can be regarded as a shade of blue but it is not blue (Here is the blue article with the shades of blue color chart I originally included in it: [5]). The color beige is a specific and definite color which is the color of undyed cloth. Beige is a pale cream/ivory color, not a pale brown color like zinnwaldite. Keraunos ( talk) 07:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is only one of a large number of articles, each devoted to a single color on a color chart that I suspect is not notable belonging to a website that I suspect is not notable, xona.com. Is it even clear that the whole list would merit an article on Wikipedia, let alone squandering a whole page on every color on the chart? How does one submit a whole batch of pages for deletion discussion at once? Largo Plazo ( talk) 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. There are many more; at the moment, this is as far as I've gotten with tagging them with the afd1 template:
Davy's grey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arsenic (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charcoal (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Variations of pink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zinnwaldite (color) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some of them are arbitrary names. Others are commonly used names, but they have been assigned to a point on the color wheel as though they have an exact definition that they don't possess, outside of an arbitrary (and subjective) color naming system that may assign them as such. WP:NOR seems to apply too.
Here's an example of the attitude that has gone into the use of Wikipedia to imply that these color names are somehow official: in the article on Zinnwaldite (color), it says
In the 1960s the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) marketed zinnwaldite colored telephones for offices and homes. However, they described the color as "beige." It is therefore common for many people to refer to the color zinnwaldite as "beige."
The implication is that "zinnwaldite" is objectively speaking the "real" name for this color, and people say the phones are "beige" only because AT&T flouted the "real" term and used "beige" instead—as though otherwise people would naturally have called the color "zinnwaldite". In general, these articles represent an attempt to create specific definitions that don't already, objectively speaking, exist.
Unfortunately, there are also many color articles that began with and/or now contain material that is actually notable information about the color (see Baby blue, for example) but that have been adulterated with these subjective color name assignments. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I acknowledge that some related articles are about colors whose specific values were defined at the outset, such as Mountbatten pink. However, what that means is: A specific color was selected for a specific purpose, and it has been given, or has acquired, a name associated with that selection. It doesn't mean that that name is in any sense an official name for that color. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Original Kelly Green article when it was separate: Keraunos ( talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Here is the beige article with the color chart of colors in the beige range which I originally included in the article: [4]. Obviously, zinnwaldite can be regarded as a shade of beige, but it is not beige, just as Bondi blue can be regarded as a shade of blue but it is not blue (Here is the blue article with the shades of blue color chart I originally included in it: [5]). The color beige is a specific and definite color which is the color of undyed cloth. Beige is a pale cream/ivory color, not a pale brown color like zinnwaldite. Keraunos ( talk) 07:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply