Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal: Difference between revisions

4,857 bytes added , 17 September

m

Protected "Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

Scrooge MacDuck

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

38,209

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|The Panopticon}}
+{{archive}}
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 : Outside of {{tlx|conjecture}} pages, we should stick to DWU terminology when it comes to what we ''call'' pages, because the general assumption is that a page name reflects a direct quote from a source. But I don't think we can reasonably hold ourselves to the idea of ''writing'' in a way that sticks to DWU terminology.--[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+::: To begin with, I also cited "Dalek bumps are round" as something we're allowed to say without a rigorous DWU definition of the term.
+::I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that I'm going to claim that mathematical objects are the ''most'' natural of natural kinds.
+::: it seems insane to suggest that we can only use words (or even nouns) that have provably appeared in the DWU with those meanngs, for fear of dealing with such a situation in the future
+::You're taking me to be saying something ''far'' stronger than I actually am. Who said we can't use these words? We're primarily discussing ''articles'', and how to construct them. I do think it's not unreasonable to modify our site ''after'' the hypothetical happens - perhaps in a careful manner, such as "green", or "green"<sup>[nb1]</sup> - but I see no reason to paralyze normal practice before then. (Also - now that I think about it, I think a disclaimer section similar to {{tlx|conjecture}} noting that these instances were grouped together through conjectural RW reasoning might be satisfactory.) Regardless, I think we're straying off topic and to the more general issues present in the other thread. I think these are the important bits that are relevant to the discussion here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::Thank you to Najawin for linking the previous discussions, I'll admit I sort of focused in on the more stub tagged ones at first.
+::::I agree that that colour squares should be deleted as they give a false legitimacy.
+::::I'm always reticent to locking pages to editing, as I always want people to edit. But if we move through this policy I would agree with locking the pages that get merged down to prevent editing. And if the editor perseveres with editing then a ban for a month or something may be in order, but that would be a last resort.
+::::I concur with patterns, they can remain as pages. I'll admit I didn't even consider patterns in this proposal.
+::::To Scrooge's point, I would not be advocating TARDIS blue, that's why I had that it needs to be cited, as that page is.
+::::If we need to discuss patterns, items of clothing etc that would I think need a different discussion, or the aforementioned No RW.
+::::At the moment, a lot of these colour pages just seem to have been identified/invented by the user.
+::::The conjecture tag doesn't even really work for those colours, at least with conjecture there is a shared understanding of what the object is. As I've stated with colour it's a lot more nuanced. Hence the need to simplify it down to where there's more common ground. —[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
+Just made [https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Olive_(colour)&diff=3814985&oldid=3814831 this edit] on [[Olive (colour)]]. Check the entries on Osgood I trimmed. I think it's an interesting demonstration of the subjective nature of these entries (albeit about the identification of the article of clothing rather than the colour) - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  14:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
+:<del>Maybe I'm missing something, but [[Ruby (colour)]]'s lead is cited to TLoRS. I don't think the colour is even ''mentioned'' in that episode, much less described, which is leading me to wonder if there are other mis-cited examples on these pages?</del> - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  15:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
+::I was indeed missing something, my bad - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
+==Conclusion==
+<div class="tech">
+A policy will be created based on the above-linked suggestions.
+A conjecture subheading will be added to the [[Tardis:Colour spectrum policy]] essentially citing  [[Template:Conjecture]] for the rare cases when defining a colour is difficult.
+*[[Template:Color]] will be deleted, as this gives false legitimacy, and also fails [[T:NO RW]].
+*Of the colour pages that get merged down into existing pages, those will be edit locked to prevent re-creation.
+A navbox will be added to all colour pages along the lines of this:
+{{Navfobox
+|header = Colour spectrum
+|t1     = [[Tardis:Colour spectrum policy]]
+|1      = For accurate coverage of <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> all different instances of <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> are collected here.
+}}
+--[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 05:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
+</div>
+[[Category:Policy changers]]

Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal: Difference between revisions

Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal (view source)

Revision as of 10:53, 17 September 2024