Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color

Archives
April 2005 – June 2005 June 2005 – September 2005

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Do you have a set of basic colors that you would consider publishable? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion (this seems to be a dormant project because I've never been able to achieve any discussion of these articles): I believe all of the articles on colors have a serious flaw. They do not contain any references; the colors could be made up for all the reader knows. The infobox is also full of context-free numbers. I could not therefore recommend any of them. Some of the articles about color science are good, but they lack consistency. Notinasnaid 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - I'll note that on our listings. Maybe a simple goal for the project could be getting a basic set of colours up to A-Class? Hopefully in time things will change. I think with minor re-organisation of refs the article Color would be A-Class (i.e., it could be considered as a possible FAC), do you agree? Thanks, Walkerma 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Colours

Hi, i'm from the community portal redesign project. We're discussing color options, and i was initially looking around for this: Wikipedia:Colours. I also found you folk, and was wondering if any of you would be interested in helping expand the list of suggested color schemes at Wikipedia:Colours (to maybe 4 or 5 schemes max? that don't clash with each other). In our discussion, we all like the colors at commons:Help:Contents. I'll be adding those (and a few more from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Color) to Wikipedia:Colours as soon as i can (decipher the tables).

I also thought it might be a page worth adding to your Goal's list, or as something worth watching over. Thanks :-) --Quiddity 05:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress and regress

Recently there seems to be a movement towards removing entries on colours and it might even be gainisng speed. Since it seems contrary to this project and on suggestion from [[Johan the Ghost _seance ]] I am bringing it up here.

The best example is the case of the entry for ecru which had its own entry but now redirects to beige and before that to yellow, see Talk:Yellow#Ecru for more information.

The deleting proposals can be found in the [history file] and can be briefly summarised as 152 other color pages doesn;t show notability, shows we need to do cleanup... this fails notability by only possibly being Wiktionary entry, which already exists followed by no possibility of being anything beyond substub, this is what Wiktionary is for. I cannot find any discussion leading up to wipe and redirect. This suggests another 150 colours are about to be deleted. I for one think this would decrease the usefulness of Wikipedia. --14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support your position, that all colour stubs are useful (but need Color-coordinates/swatch infoboxes), and will be slowly expanded, and should not be deleted or merged.

I don't know if anyone else is watchlisting this page, but it does seem the right place to discuss this issue. -Quiddity 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not support including non-notable colors. I especially do not support making up swatches for them. I support only including colors that are part of a published and non-proprietary standard. I fully support deleting all entries for nonstandardised and non-notable colors. Notinasnaid 11:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The notability of a colour is what this is going to center on. What criteria are you suggesting we use?

"Published and non-proprietary" sounds sensible, but that includes hundreds of colours. see List of colors, which is only a tiny selection. Just to pick two randomly: I like the box at the bottom of Prussian blue, and think Camouflage green covers three names with a good start for a stub.

There is a song about the colour Ecru (which is now a redirect, but imo shouldnt be) by Ken Nordine, for example, and it's not a new word:[1].

They're not fan-cruft or similar, so I can't see removing any of those as being beneficial.

However, for an example of a stub that might not belong, see Gray-Tea Green. This doesnt appear to be one of the X11 color names (most of which i would obviously Not advocate creating an article for), and i don't know what colour space it does belong to. -Quiddity 18:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am brand new to this project (and with good timing from the looks of it!). I read through a lot of the discussion above, about the proliferation of color pages. The suggestion about having a standard, limited set of "major" colors like red and blue was a good one. They could have the color range swatches that were proposed, and a list of common shades, even including descriptions if appropriate. For example, Beige might list Ecru as a shade, and point out that Ecru tends to be a light, yellow-ish, off-white shade of beige. (Although I'm not sure that I'd put Ecru with Beige so maybe that's a bad example.)

I'm not totally stuck on any particular set of starter colors; maybe going through an 8-pack of crayons and then adding a few other popular ones would be a good start. Then, if we find that a particular color is getting a lot of text with it, we might consider breaking it out. For example, Teal could be included as a shade of (blue? green? what about the color Blue-Green?). If we find that it ends up with three or four paragraphs of description, then it might be worth breaking it out as its own page.

Lastly, on the topic of color swatches. On the one hand, I agree that it seems a little presumptuous to define one definitive "Red". On the other hand, I have come here in the past looking for particular colors, and it was very helpful to see a swatch. Hearing that Puce is "generally considered to be dark red to brownish-purple" was very helpful to me; to see an actual swatch would have been even better. (There is already a swatch there but it looks more like mauve to me, unless that's just my browser.) Standard problems with browser and monitor differences - this is why we used to work only with a few dozen colors on web pages.

Now that I've rambled long enough, I'll end by saying that I think this is a very worthwhile project and one that I'd like to contribute to. I'm going to take a look at the article for Color next, and see about organizing some of the major colors. This project seems to have been dormant for a while; anyone for starting it back up? --Laura S 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify what I mean by "standard", since you used it in your reply in a completely different way than I intended. Easily done. To my mind a standard is the result of a standardization process, a recognised list of colors, an "official list" if you like. For example, the HTML/CSS list of colors in web colors is based on a standard; I think the color part of this is good, useful, and encyclopedic. Unfortunately, there has been nothing to stop anyone in Wikipedia deciding that SkyBluePink is a color, creating an article, and putting an info box with some made up colors in it. So I advocate removing all color boxes that do not contain standard values, and removing all non-standard values added for standard colors (for example, CMYK values for colors that were standardised as RGB). We also have to address the issue that multiple important standards might use the same name for different colors. See green as an illustration of this problem. For this reason it is vital that color infoboxes identify the standard that applies. A crucial decision to make is what is considered an acceptable standard. Merely being on the web is not enough; I have found many pages with new made-up lists. Notinasnaid 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More: I have to say that the example of a pack of crayons is the exact opposite of what I think should be happening. You and I have no way to measure those colors accurately, nor any reason to declare that this blue crayon is a standard for blue. I do see a conflict here, and it is important to resolve this. There are really two outlooks being taken onto the color project: scientific, based on color science, measurement, standards; and artistic, based on a desire to work with colors. Both are valuable, and as someone whose head is more into color science I recognise that the artistic outlook is important and sincere. A lot of work has been done, too, and I respect that but at the same time, Wikipedia's policies have to be considered. I have several times seen a statement like "it's important that Wikipedia include some value and sample for each color." The implication being that some color is more important than accuracy. But Wikipedia has an absolute rule of verifiability: making up some color, or picking a personal favorite between several is the dreaded original research. So I couldn't agree with this statement less. It is very important Wikipedia does not include some kind of value for a color unless it is in the context of a well defined (and well explained) standard. No articles that I have seen meet this criterion. I don't think a "head in the sand" approach can work here; as Wikipedia matures its policies are being more rigorously enforced, and if the color boxes are to survive in any form, they need to change to a verifiable approach. I'd like to add that I'm very glad to see this project come back from the dead; various attempts have been made to deal with these issues without raising any interest at all. Notinasnaid 10:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been giving some thought as to how to bridge the artistic/scientific gap. While Red is included in many color standards, and could have an infobox, my favorite illustration of red is #Red (color) above. This clearly shows a range of reds. Now, what about ecru? My initial research throws up a dictionary definition but no standard. Clearly on that basis (my arguments above would suggest that) we can't have an infobox because there is no standardised color. But how about a photograph of something that is in the fabric ecru? Indeed, ecru is by its dictionary definition first a fabric, second its color. There is also I believe a standardised cotton color. This is no good for info boxes, unless the makers provide an absolute color reference for it, but we could photograph a hank of the cotton. Notinasnaid 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, for a project that didn't raise much interest for so long, we seem to have generated quite a bit of it now. (For the record, I count that as a good thing.) We seem to be having several discussions in one thread, which is a little confusing. I have a feeling it's also making it seem like we all disagree more than we actually do. For the purposes of clarity, I'm going to attempt to break some of these discussions out so we can give them the focus they deserve. -- Laura S | talk to me 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly just watching and commenting, no expertise just curiousity. Take all my comments with a "weakly believe" prefix :) I prefer doing cleanup work in the background mostly. -Quiddity 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientific vs. artistic

There seems to be a rift between defining and describing color from a scientific point of view and an artistic one. As Notinasnaid said, "There are really two outlooks being taken onto the color project: scientific, based on color science, measurement, standards; and artistic, based on a desire to work with colors. Both are valuable..."

As a matter of disclosing any bias I might have, I come more from the artistic standpoint, but find the scientific view interesting as well. In considering readers, there will be some looking for each type of information. I think our challenge (and value) lies in representing both of these views adequately and in a complementary fashion. Having said all that, I'm not sure what the solution is; only that I'm up for trying to find one. -- Laura S | talk to me 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Inclusionism is generally better. -Quiddity 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of colors

The next topic is whether to include all colors we can lay hands on, or only certain colors. The forming consensus seems to be to have articles for only a set of "major" colors (how to select those is another question).

My personal addition to that would be rather that eliminating all the other color articles and stubs, which could lose a lot of good information, we should sift through the color articles. Any color that can be verified (from an art book, etc.) and is non-commercial could be added to the appropriate main color article. Ecru above was probably a bad example for a few reasons, but take the example of maroon. Defining precisely what maroon is might be difficult (unless there's an established standard), but - and I do say this without verification so please don't vilify me - it's generally accepted to be a dark shade of red. Therefore, again assuming we can verify this, I would support including "maroon" in an article for red, possibly in a "shades of red" section. This would retain the valuable information without cluttering Wikipedia with dozens of stubs and non-notable information.

So my questions would be, is my first paragraph accurate, and what does everyone think of the second part? -- Laura S | talk to me 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist(mergist if necessary to avoid deletion, but stubs are fine by me). So i say all actual colours deserve their own page. So ecru, maroon, puce, indigo, mauve, aquamarine, etc all get their own page.

But obscure things like crayola colours (electric lime, purple pizzazz) are all on a single page. --Quiddity 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Defining notable colors and standards

This is the other big one. If we are agreed to create or improve a limited set of color articles, which ones do we pick? My crayon suggestion was mainly just illustrative (the Crayola 64-pack was my favorite "toy" as a toddler so I have a slight crayon bias); I have seen suggestions for using spectral color. Or perhaps primary and secondary colors (which gets us to the same place essentially). I would add black, white, and probably brown and grey to the list as well.

Then there is the whole X11, HTML, web-safe colors, etc. discussion. I think those are important to discuss, and maybe even list the definitions of the colors of them, but each one certainly does not deserve its own article. -- Laura S | talk to me 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Swatches

This one seems to cause a lot of grief, which is why I'm breaking it out separately. Do we or do we not include swatches of colors, and if so, what should they be like? I'm of the opinion that the current swatches aren't really doing any of the colors justice, especially because of differences between screen and print. At the same time, I think it is essential that we illustrate at least the major colors with examples.

I move for a multiple example solution - like the collage picture for Red. The article for green shows a couple photographic examples of "things that are green", and I think that's really excellent. This way people understand we're not trying to represent a perfect green, but rather a range. If we say "leaves are green", they can go outside and see some leaves and go "ah, that's green". Also, and this is purely a matter of aesthetics, but the photos are much nicer to look at than a big chunk of some randomly chosen shade of green. -- Laura S | talk to me 23:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most people who come to wikipedia I'm betting are there to look at more generalized aspects of a color in layman's terms. The things that colors have come to represent, uses for colors and emotions it evokes and is associated with are far more interesting and encyclopedic than swatches and color bars.MiracleMat 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Multiple examples are inherently better than single. -Quiddity 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds like we have a consensus then? Once we figure out what colors to include, we can provide some multi-color swatches and examples of "things that are x color". Now to figure out which colors to include. The other discussions have all been painfully quiet lately... -- Laura S | talk to me 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have a major proposal in preparation which impacts on this; can I crave your indulgence until it is ready, hopefully soon. Notinasnaid 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, we can't really do much about the swatches anyway until we decide which colors to include. Does your proposal touch on that as well? -- Laura S | talk to me 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Spectral color

i have added some material to spectral color on the physics of spectral color and integration of the spectral colors in visible light. i have some further ideas on wavelength discussion, alternative light sources for visible light, etc, if a consensus indicates more such material would be desirable. i am open to editing or moving text i created just now to another article. im a newcomer to "color" editing so i am open to suggestion. Anlace 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Color peer review

The talk page for Color says there was a peer review for that article, but it looks like the archive has been deleted. Does anyone know what kinds of comments the article got? I hate to bother people with another peer review on the same article, but it would be a good step toward getting that article to FA. Thanks! -- Laura S | talk to me 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a mistake?[2] Nothing in the Peer Review archives for it. There was one for Wikipedia:Peer review/HSV color space, and a no-feedback review attempt of Wikipedia:Peer review/Dominant wavelength though. I'll remove the banner. --Quiddity 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia policy/guideline on color/colour articles and swatches

For some time I have felt that there are problems with color articles in Wikipedia. It seems anyone can decide that a color exists, create a swatch, convert to dubious CMYK values using any method they please, and define an article. I see this as a problem, because of Wikipedia's requirements for verifyability. Others may not. However, I do believe that many things in the color articles are open to challenge under Wikipedia:Verifiability and that as this is enforced more strictly, most articles are currently open to deletion.

To deal with this I have created a proposal. It is in formal language because that's how proposals have to be to work, but I am not trying to forestall discussion. I don't know the mechanisms of Wikipedia policies either, so if there is any consensus to adopt this (or another) policy some guidance will be needed on what happens next.

To avoid accusations of hiding stuff in formality, some of the side effects of accepting these proposals would be: deleting non-notable color articles; removing color values that aren't from an authoritative standard; and removing CMYK values in swatches.

Proposal and following two sections posted by Notinasnaid 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal

1. Notability and verifiability. Wikipedia may include articles on color names only where there is sufficient notable and verifiable information available to write a non-stub article on aspects of the use of the color name. Verifiability of the use of a color name must go beyond finding a web site that lists or uses the name.

2. Use of color disclaimer. Wikipedia may include illustrations such as photographs of objects to illustrate the meaning of a color name; in all cases these shall link to a color disclaimer page which emphasises that exact color reproduction cannot be guaranteed and that neither the monitor nor a printout should be used as a reference. A similar disclaimer shall be used in any illustration which shows a color or ranges of colors in such a way that they might be taken as being authoritative.

3. Color values only if in a standard. In some cases a color name will be included in an authoritive standard which gives a definition or conversion in terms of specific color models or color spaces. It is proper to include this information provided the color name standard is not proprietary (see item 6). Conversions to other color spaces that do not form part of the standard or source shall not appear.

4. Strict limits on swatches. In limited situations, Wikipedia may include swatches of colors which attempt to directly show colors in the browser via HTML. Such swatches may only appear where

(a) the color is defined in an authoritative standard of color names

(b) the color name standard identifies a color in either sRGB color or as a simple RGB color mixture without calibration

(c) the swatch indicates whether it is sRGB or or uncalibrated RGB

(d) the swatch does not include any other color spaces unless they form part of the same standard

(e) the swatch identifies and links the color standard used.

5. Pre-vetting of acceptable color sources. Wikiproject color shall maintain a list of authoritative and acceptable sources for color names; adding of sources needs to be subject to a consensus procedure.

6. Excluding proprietary color spaces. To protect Wikipedia from legal action, color names and values from proprietary color spaces shall not be systematically listed, and color values shall not be included at all, unless the color space owner specifically releases this information under a license suitable for use in Wikipedia.

Commentary from proposer

1. Notability and verifiability. The idea here is to make color entries follow normal Wikipedia standards. For example, if writing about a rock star or web site, there are notability standards, and every article must be verifiable through sources. (Many articles lack sources, but this is a deficiency, and one this project should be keep to remedy). Note that this item does not say anything about whether the article has a swatch; there may be colors with no formal definition, but with important cultural, artistic, political or other connections that are worthy of an article. The author of such an article should record the connections but should not attempt to formalise the definition, because that is original research. Note also that these standards don't propose what the notability standards are, just that we need to have some; the details would be a major debate in themselves, so I'd recommend at this stage just debating whether to have standars, and only move on to what is in them if there is consensus on having some.

2. Use of color disclaimer. Wikipedia has disclaimers about medical and legal advice. While colors in pictures aren't perhaps so dangerous, it is very important, if Wikipedia is to have any claim to definitive information, that it is explained that the colors you see on your monitor or printout are not controlled and may not match the original intention. People can and do use the information they see on screen to make expensive decisions, like colors in printing or decoration, in ignorance that their monitor is not a reference standard (a few monitors are calibrated but most are not). We can have a general disclaimer page, and it should be linked to from every example of color (in picture or swatch).

3. Color values only if in a standard. This is an attempt to apply Wikipedia's rules for verifiability to articles about colors. I am convinced that many color articles include RGB values that have been found on a web site, or simply picked by the editor. The latter must surely count as original research, and picking an unchecked value of some web site is no better. This is why I propose that specific color values only be included if they are in a standard. For example the HTML/CSS standard. By "standard" I mean to imply something formal, published; countless web sites make things up. Also some web sites assign RGB values to particular standard colors which aren't part of the standard (such as, I suspect, the colors of brands of crayon). This project should decide what standards are acceptable. In addition, only the color values from the standard should be used, and the color space made clear. For example, RGB and sRGB are very different in their meaning. If a standard gives a value in a different space such as Lab or YUV then this is the only data that should appear in the article, not a conversion (see next item). Note also that the same color may have radically different colors in different standards (see, for example, Green); this can simply be presented, it isn't Wikipedia's job to pick one over another.

4. Strict limits on swatches. Unavoidably, we get a bit into color science here. The gist of the argument is that Wikipedia should not be making up conversions. This is inevitable in the case of where an RGB value is converted to CMYK; these are not absolute color spaces and the RGB colors/CMYK inks make a radical difference to the actual color, as does the choice of what to do about the many RGB colors that cannot be accurately reproduced in CMYK ("out of gamut"). When accurate RGB to CMYK conversion is done there are many choices to be made (e.g. "target profile" and "rendering intent"). How can Wikipedia pick just one and say "this is standard CMYK"? That isn't the job of Wikipedia. The CMYK article contains a widely used formula. But it is not an accurate formula, or a standard. I propose that only sRGB and (uncalibrated) RGB colors in color spaces get swatches. sRGB because that's what browsers show, and RGB because it isn't a specific color, therefore treating it as sRGB is no more wrong than anything else. Some argue that Wikipedia should show some CMYK value because people will come here looking for one. I argue that's exactly why it should not show a value that cannot be accurate except in very precisely chosen situations, and isn't actually very useful.

5. Pre-vetting of acceptable color sources. I can't see another way to make this all work.

6. Excluding proprietary color spaces. It would without a doubt be useful for Wikipedia to include colors from industry standards such as Pantone, but intellectual property of this nature may be vigorously defended. This is not a battle Wikipedia would want to fight.

Further commentary and discussion

Seeing as this is a thorough proposal with many parts, would it make more sense to move this proposal and its associated discussion to a subpage, like Wikiproject Color/Color Proposal (or somesuch)? -- Laura S | talk to me 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid, thanks for this proposal. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into this, and hopefully it will go a long way toward putting us on the track to making some serious improvements in the color articles. My comments follow.

1. Notability and verifiability. I agree with this, with some expansion. I want to make sure that we don't go deleting all stub articles, because some may be useful. That is, just because an article is a stub doesn't necessarily mean the color is not notable. The AFD process would probably cover this issue. Also, some colors may merit a paragraph or so within another article (this is the mergist in me talking); we'll need to differentiate how much mention a color warrants.
2. Use of color disclaimer. This one is very important. However, instead of linking the image to the disclaimer, I would handle this in the caption. So each illustrative image or swatch would have something like this appended to its existing caption: "Note: Colors vary depending on output device." And that note would then link to a page with fuller information.
3. Color values only if in a standard. I agree fully. A great example of this is International Klein Blue. This color was developed as a special pigment of paint. The article's infobox gives the RGB value as though it's absolute but something tells me Yves Klein did not provide this value. It makes no sense to have anything other than perhaps an approximate swatch (with a big disclaimer that it's not exact), just to give readers an idea of the color, and maybe a photo of the big square of IKB that hangs in MOMA. Color space values, just like any other information, should only be provided where relevant, and where verifiable.
4. Strict limits on swatches. Need to clarify what we mean by swatches. If we're talking about a big box of a single color defined in the HTML, then I agree completely. These swatches need to be provided only where it makes sense to show an RGB or sRGB swatch, and need to be accompanied by information about what they are. However, occasionally we've used the term "swatch" to talk about a photograph, illustration, or collage containing examples of a color. I think these are very helpful to readers and should not be abolished. As long as we provide a disclaimer stating that these are not intended to show exact color values, but rather a range of colors that are "blue" or "green", I strongly support inclusion of this latter type of swatch.
5. Pre-vetting of acceptable color sources. No real opinion on this one just yet. It sounds like a good idea. I just want to make sure we don't end up exluding important colors that are not formally part of a standard, but still merit inclusion (such as IKB). However, I suppose it wouldn't be a big problem to drop a note on a talk page to gain concensus for addition of the color.
6. Excluding proprietary color spaces. Absolutely agree, no arguments here. Question though: this is purely hypothetical, as I can't think of any examples right now, but what if there is a color from a proprietary standard (say Pantone) that becomes highly notable for some reason (maybe a company uses it for all their advertisements, etc.)? Obviously it would still be inappropriate to list color values, but would it be inappropriate to list it at all? It seems this would be akin to any other product, such as Kleenex, provided we didn't include information on how to create the color. Of course, IP law gets tricky.

-- Laura S | talk to me 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all great! Glad we seem to agree so well. I favour any mergist strategy too.

Re. the proposal's placement, it seems clear and short enough that, we could just add the 6point synopsis to our main wikiproject page, with a link to the commentary here? (multiple subpages make it harder for new participants to watchlist everything appropriate.) I'll move the deprecated (by this) templates to the bottom of the main page. -Quiddity 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It almost seems too easy, after all that, that we reach agreement so quickly :) I've been looking around, and this will involve *lots* of rework. I think if we can determine a few "major" colors to start with (such as red, green, etc.) we can not only clean up those articles if they need it, but also come up with better examples instead of swatches, merge in any "minor" colors that are notable enough to be mentioned but not enough so to have their own article, etc. Coming up with that list may be problematic. How do we determine such a list? Some seem obvious (black and white) but what about cyan?

Many of the templates will go away or at least change significantly, as you've already demonstrated. We may be able to use the infobox still, in a less universal fashion (such as including only the relevant color space(s)).

After all this discussion, I'm itching to start working, but not sure where to start. I'd still like to get Color up to FA, and it's already a great article, but needs references which may be tough. Also it's highly scientific. Someone mentioned on the talk page that the whole article doesn't mention things like hue and tint; there's really no artistic treatment at all. Got any ideas?

Lastly, I think Notinasnaid is taking a brief wikibreak until next weekend, so we may not hear anything from him/her until then. -- Laura S | talk to me 01:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shades of Blue Template

Hello, Color WikiProject. I'm not really all that good at making templates, or coding or whatnot, so I just thought I would throw this out there for anyone who would be more capable than I am to fix this issue. The Shades of Blue chart along the bottom of all of the blue-based color pages seems to have an error when linking to the color "prussian blue". Instead of going to Prussian blue (color), it goes to the article on Prussian blue, the anti-semitic pop duo. So anyone who is capable, please fix this when you have a moment?  :) Thanks a lot.

Thanks for bringing this up. It's likely that the "shades of blue" template will probably go away as a result of the above discussion, but I've fixed it for now. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ which will add your username and a timestamp. Thanks! -- Laura S | talk to me 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should've remembered the signature tag, since I'm used to talk pages by now. And thanks for the quick fix to the template, even if it is probably going away. Just a good "principle of the matter" thing considering what it was linking to before.-Resident Lune 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I got bored :) and created a userbox for our project. I'm keeping it in user space for now since that seems to be the direction userboxes are headed. Please feel free to copy/question/comment/subst and change the text color to your own favorite! -- Laura S | talk to me 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)