Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Forumheader|The Panopticon}} <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> We have a Category:Colours on the whole it's ''fine'' for primary and secondary colours Red, Yellow, Blue, Orange, Green, Purple/Violet and even stuff like White, Pink, Brown etc. But it's the ones that seem to veer off into odd specifics without any citation. For example: *Petrol (colour)...") |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
See [[Talk:Olive (colour)]] for the earliest discussion I know of on this, ''over three years ago'', all prompted by this one IP user. (It's very distinctly them, their edit summaries, when they care to write them, are always similar.) And, yes, forums have been down, and we've had other stuff to do. But just for reference as to how long this has been an issue people have been frustrated with. Jack, Nate, and OS12 had a discussion about what to do with them in late 2022, (largely present [[User talk:NateBumber/Archive 4#Unregistered contributor|here]] and [[User talk:Jack/Archive 3#Re: Unregistered contributor|here]]), with no good solution. And more recent discussions are present at [[Talk:Wool]], [[Talk:Herringbone]], [[Talk:Peacoat]] and [[Forum:Loosening T:NO RW]]. | |||
This last thread largely why people haven’t been trying to do anything, imo, since these pages are often in blatant violation of [[T:NO RW]] as written, and since the thread is open [[T:BOUND]] has been in effect. (I’m assuming it’s waived, given the OP of the thread. Scrooge also suggests in that thread that since these pages have gone on for 3 years under nu-[[T:BOUND]] they're kosher, but I'm unconvinced, due to the fact our forum systems were down and [[Talk:Olive (colour)]] explicitly puts the matter off ''because of this''. This would be a catch-22.) Herringbone is perhaps one thing, though I'm less than confident that ''in-universe'' we know that they distinguish ''particular patterns'' in the same way that we do ''out-of-universe''. But how do we know that they distinguish, idk, jackets in the same way we do? Maybe the reason something is called "X" is for different reasons than why we call it "X". | |||
Regardless, I think the proposal here is a good first pass at a policy, but there are some areas where I think we could use some trimming up. Firstly, unless the valid source is a ''visual one'' that ''identifies that color'', it is improper to say that other things we can see are that same color. Secondly, unless that same thing is true we should ''delete the color squares'' that are present on some of these pages. Thirdly, and perhaps most controversially, all of these pages should be ''locked to autoconfirmed users'', as should the pages for various articles of clothing (including, for both, whatever is deleted). I actually appreciate, in principle, the IP user's efforts, but they often border on vandalism. They can learn our policies. Fourth, if we're ''preserving'' all this effort, there might still be disagreement on whether certain things should be, say, purple or blue, as opposed to when they were some new color in the middle. Since color perception is somewhat subjective, I don't see a clear way to resolve this. We might be forced to abandon information that doesn't fit neatly into the categories we end up picking. (Though the information may come back later if it's ever identified in a comic or on screen.) I think these will just be edge cases, and rare, but we should be up front about this. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:59, 12 June 2024
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
We have a Category:Colours on the whole it's fine for primary and secondary colours Red, Yellow, Blue, Orange, Green, Purple/Violet and even stuff like White, Pink, Brown etc.
But it's the ones that seem to veer off into odd specifics without any citation.
For example:
I'm proposing that because colour / its perception has nuances and personal perceptions we should merge and reduce these pages down to colours that are named in a T:VS.
Merging them down will provide I think a better resource of information without veering into personal perception. Also no information will be lost in this process, merely merged and integrated into other existing pages.
For an example where personal perception fails and VS picks up is Aquamarine which states
- Grace Holloway wore an aquamarine opera gown. (TV: Doctor Who)
That's not in the TVM's dialogue anywhere. However in the novelisation it describes Grace's dress as:
- the tight electric-blue ballgown she was wearing.
I've also written a policy that would be part of our Tardis:Naming conventions, see here for the policy. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
See Talk:Olive (colour) for the earliest discussion I know of on this, over three years ago, all prompted by this one IP user. (It's very distinctly them, their edit summaries, when they care to write them, are always similar.) And, yes, forums have been down, and we've had other stuff to do. But just for reference as to how long this has been an issue people have been frustrated with. Jack, Nate, and OS12 had a discussion about what to do with them in late 2022, (largely present here and here), with no good solution. And more recent discussions are present at Talk:Wool, Talk:Herringbone, Talk:Peacoat and Forum:Loosening T:NO RW.
This last thread largely why people haven’t been trying to do anything, imo, since these pages are often in blatant violation of T:NO RW as written, and since the thread is open T:BOUND has been in effect. (I’m assuming it’s waived, given the OP of the thread. Scrooge also suggests in that thread that since these pages have gone on for 3 years under nu-T:BOUND they're kosher, but I'm unconvinced, due to the fact our forum systems were down and Talk:Olive (colour) explicitly puts the matter off because of this. This would be a catch-22.) Herringbone is perhaps one thing, though I'm less than confident that in-universe we know that they distinguish particular patterns in the same way that we do out-of-universe. But how do we know that they distinguish, idk, jackets in the same way we do? Maybe the reason something is called "X" is for different reasons than why we call it "X".
Regardless, I think the proposal here is a good first pass at a policy, but there are some areas where I think we could use some trimming up. Firstly, unless the valid source is a visual one that identifies that color, it is improper to say that other things we can see are that same color. Secondly, unless that same thing is true we should delete the color squares that are present on some of these pages. Thirdly, and perhaps most controversially, all of these pages should be locked to autoconfirmed users, as should the pages for various articles of clothing (including, for both, whatever is deleted). I actually appreciate, in principle, the IP user's efforts, but they often border on vandalism. They can learn our policies. Fourth, if we're preserving all this effort, there might still be disagreement on whether certain things should be, say, purple or blue, as opposed to when they were some new color in the middle. Since color perception is somewhat subjective, I don't see a clear way to resolve this. We might be forced to abandon information that doesn't fit neatly into the categories we end up picking. (Though the information may come back later if it's ever identified in a comic or on screen.) I think these will just be edge cases, and rare, but we should be up front about this. Najawin ☎ 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
