Forum:Colours identification and merge proposal: Difference between revisions

10,715 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

38,198

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 34: / Line 34: @@
 : The subjectivity of specific hues is another matter, as it's not a RW problem but simply a problem of different interpretations/linguistic variants. To a point it's a universal issues. Going back to my "jumping" example, maybe not everyone would agree on where the line is exactly between a long stride and an actual running 'jump'. Disagreements just rarely come up. Still, the extremely fine-grained judgement calls the IP user has been making do give me pause. I am against fully collapsing our coverage into the primary colours — it seems important, for example, to have pages like [[TARDIS blue]] — but I agree something must be done. Not yet sure what. Tangerine's proposal of ''specifically'' forbidding the creation of \{{tlx|conjecture}}-named colour pages seems like it could do the trick, but maybe there's a less extreme solution. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::I tend to agree with Najawin here on the hues; If character A wears a top that's roughly mustard yellow, and character B wears a top that's roughly pastel yellow, but no valid source names the colours of the tops, they should both be found on [[Yellow]], and nowhere else. The patterns I agree with Scrooge. I mentioned in [[Talk:Peacoat]] that the structure of the articles is bizarre too, and while I've been doing some grammar passes while chasing after the IP editor's haphazard citation formatting, the wall-of-text-ness of some of the entries strikes me as odd and easily prunable without losing any relevant information. - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  18:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::I think it falls under the [[Talk:Hatbox]] thing, and while it's hard to word, it's one of the things I'm keenest to clarify in the long-delayed [[Forum:Loosening T:NO RW]] closing post — our Wiki is written in ''real-world English'', not DWU-English. We don't need a DWU source for a specific word to use that word descriptively; when the Doctor makes an upward bouncing motion to avoid an obstacle while running, we can write "the Doctor jumped" even if there's no DWU source defining the verb "jumping" as such.
+::::Sorry, not buying these are the same thing. Entities and the things entities do are ontologically and linguistically distinct. (And, indeed, distinct in terms of ''the rules of this wiki''!) If, ahem, someone, were to write a story that said "trenchcoats were any coat that, when worn, were less than two feet from the ground", it doesn't seem implausible to me that we should then apply that standard to other coats that are not, in the real world, trenchcoats in writing our articles. The DWU could quite easily define things in terms of length rather than style - length is just as much a natural kind as style is. And this is without getting into more tenuous cases like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction grue]. Again, distinct ''patterns'' are one thing. Distinguishing between various ''types'' of a larger article of clothing are another, and I think you run into issues in how you make these choices. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
+: Not buying the relevance of the action/entity discussion here. 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. (Okay, so ''that''{{'}}s an adjective… but look, I'd say the same thing for "Dalek bumps were sphere-shaped", or "circle shaped", or what have you. That's just a question of what sounds clunkier, and it would besides be bizarre to suggest that we're allowed to say something is "circular" without a DWU definition, but not that it's "shaped like a circule"!) We do have a policy stating we treat ''nouns'' differently from ''verbs'', but that's only about what gets pages, not terminology, and moreover it isn't synonymous with an action/entity distinction; to cite something uncontroversial, [[regeneration]] is a "thing entities do", not an entity in itself. And [[Jumping]] is a page. Oh, and Someone™ could just as easily write that in the DWU the verb "jumping" only referred to hopping on one foot, and never two; ''that'' problem is in no way noun- or entity-specific, so I don't see how you could ground differing approaches ''there''.
+: What to do if and when we ''do'' get an explicit DWU definition of a word that conflicts with real-world English… ''that'' is a serious question, and one of the main ones I've been grappling with in the closing post. But, just as I plan to rule there, 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. Maybe no DWU source has yet given a definition for the word "green", and just maybe some gremlin will eventually publish one asserting that the word "green" refers to the colour of daffodils, gold coins and the Dalek Emperor. But it would, in my view, be ridiculous to say that we would have to wait for such confirmation before [[Raxacoricofallapatorian#Physiology]] is allowed to tell us what colour the Slitheen's skin was.
+: In fact, ''even if'' we got a DWU source saying "green" was DWU!English for "yellow", and still had no explicit contravening sources defining "green" in the ordinary way, it would be user-hostile to start using the DWU word exclusively, and write about the Dalek Emperor's green casing and the green crystals in the Thirteenth Doctor's TARDIS. Even to the extent that DWU!English might differ from real-world English, it would (in my view) be a very great mistake to write the Wiki ''itself'' in DWU English. If we faced the situation I describe w. regards to the definition of "green", my proposal would be that we would continue to use the word "yellow" to talk about what colour things are, and only use the DWU "green" in ways specifically cited to the source asserting as much. Maybe we would create "[[Green (Story Title)]]", in the vein of "[[Mavity (term)]]":
+::  "Some accounts claimed that in [[the Doctor's universe]], the word '''green''' was used to refer to yellow things, such as…".
+: 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