Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 3



Template:PBA teams organization

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)



Single use template, as such, it has been substituted and is currently unused. Can be speedily deleted if an admin wants that course of action. – Howard  the   Duck  16:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete - doesn't look like there's a need for a template here. Terraxos (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: not all of the template has to be substituted letter-by-letter. Currently the template in its current form has a fair use image, which is banned, and the use of inappropriate color in the heading (the colored boxes are just fine). I'd recommend a selective substituting. – Howard  the   Duck  05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Shades of brown

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Garion96 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This template implies that each of the shades shown is an authoritative rendering of the shade named. In fact, the names by and large do not represent mutually exclusive single points in color space but subjective ranges with some degree of overlap. This exposition is arbitrary, subjective, and misleading original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of those colors have "official" hex codes, which makes their "single points in color space" not so subjective. JPG-GR (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Official" per whom? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the purpose and use of this template. It is intended to allow related colors to have a single link to each other for all of them, as opposed to creating a long list of links, it creates a single box that shows related links, and is intended to allow someone looking at the page about a particular color to see other similar color pages.  While it is possible it is subjective, the whole point of being able to "see" the other page's color allows someone to know if it's what they're looking for before clicking on that link.  It is not "original research" because it is not "research" at all; it's simply a list of colors that have entries on Wikipedia that are to some extent interconnected, and is essentially no different from a set of "see also" links that would list other similar colors.  It is one of those items that is intended to make navigation among pages of Wikipedia easier and that is its purpose.  By making it a template, it is consistent for all the pages that use it.  If we want to argue about it, any common-named color is going to have a "subjective" quality about it.  Let's take "red".  This can be anything from the color of a shirt, to a traffic light, to the color of the Golden Gate Bridge (which technically is named International Orange) to a fire engine, and all of these will be different in some respects, but they'll be called "red".  Is "yellow" only the color of a sunflower, or does it include a traffic light, a line on a two-way road, etc?  Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many such navigation templates, and they mostly consist of unillustrated lists of links. The addition of the colored rectangles implies, for each color, "this is what this color looks like", as though this were an objective fact. As far as helping the user to be sure that he's clicking the right link is concerned, that's just another illustration of the problem. "Tan" covers a whole swath of shades. Does it makes sense to imply "this is what tan looks like" and, therefore, discourage the reader from licking the tan link if the color block is a different shade from the one he has in mind, which itself may perfectly well be classified as "tan"? As for the rest of your comment, you're making my case for me. These names in practice cover a whole range of color, and you give examples that illustrate that fact. The use of color blocks in the template implies that there is some objective one-to-one correspondence between the shade names and the specific color values represented. It carries a false implication. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: WikiProject Color maintains a navbox set for each of the "parent" colors in the visible spectrum. While many people can object to the concept of naming specific wavelengths or color blends, it serves as a useful navigational aid. If you object to some specific useages or names, then take it up on the talk page(s) of the color and the template talk. The origional research claim is tough to refute because well... how do you reference a color? What I condsider to be "dark blue" may be called "azure" by another editor, but in the end, the name is pretty irrelevant; it just serves as a more aesthetically pleasing article title vice a hex number. This nomination seems a rather narrow slice of an institutional disagreement (i.e. you'd be better to discuss this agument against more than just the brown navbox, but against Wikipedia's treatment of color as a whole).  bahamut0013  words deeds   14:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a misleading guide a useful one? The template is conveying, even if only by strong implication, false information. Providing false information violates Wikipedia policy. The arbitrary assignment of names to specific color values, however aesthetically pleasing it might be, is original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm from the Color project and let me just say that we are very aware of the problem. We have many, many color articles and the process takes time. I don't believe the deletion process is the right process for this problem. We need a larger solution. Wrad (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in your desire to find a solution. Is there agreement about what the problem is that is to be solved? I ask that in seriousness&mdash;I may even have some helpful ideas, being a brainstorming kind of guy. For now, regarding the problem I'm addressing, it can be solved by removing the color boxes that give the erroneous impression. I understand they're intended to be helpful. I'm just saying that this appearance of helpfulness is illusory as it is rooted in a false premise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad to find someone else that cares. Our numbers are few. The larger issue here is how to deal with shades of color. Do we name them? Do we just give hex #s? Do we just ignore them? Everyone names colors differently. Some shades are more notable than others, and can be backed up with sources. Most can't. Once we solve that issue, then we'll be better able to decide what to do with templates and Shades of x color articles. Wrad (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : Another color project editor here, though I haven't been that active recently. I agree with much of what Wrad says. Yes the navigation templates and the prominent placing of "color coordinates" in the overly used color info boxes is a problem. That said I do believe that the navigational templates (perhaps sans the boxes of colors in them) are useful at least as long as the various articles exist for each major hue. PaleAqua (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:  How about using the naming system from one of those "proper" colo(u)r databases/books (for example: pantone) and also include the common name in brackets? Peachey88 (Talk Page 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First: "Pantone 1234" would be an incredibly obtuse name for an article. Second, and more importantly: Pantone claims copyright over their color database, and wouldn't appreciate our attempting to reproduce it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never meant to use Pantone, but i offered that as a example so people knew what i was talking about. Is there a free colo(u)r space/list released anywhere that could be used? Peachey88 (Talk Page 02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems like an entirely sensible way to link to various colour articles. The objection raised by the nominator seems pretty spurious - there is no 'official' definition of beige, but nothing in this template states that the shade used is official or authoritative. It is simply one example of a shade which may be called 'beige'. Terraxos (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't spurious. The different shades are used to distinguish color names that may perfectly well refer to intersecting color regions. Further, the falsehood is carried over into the articles themselves. The article on Beige declares beige to be #F5F5DC. It is simply, utterly, completely untrue. The entire treatment of colors on Wikipedia is riddled with these false/point-of-view/original research (however you want to classify it) single-color-point assignments, and it's a farce. It's as though someone thought that none of these color names existed until physicists devised the color space, and then they invented all the names from scratch, one per point, as a convenience, and that these points are their official designations. This template is part of that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The template is very useful for navigating between colors.  I color matched all the colors (using a full spectrum lamp) in Wikipedia against the colors displayed in the 1930 book by Maerz and Paul called A Dictionary of Color, which was the world standard for color matching before the introduction of computers, and just about all of the colors displayed in Wikipedia match very well the colors in the book, so there  is no reason to think that the coordinates chosen are not accurate.  The names are not invented, most of them are in the 1930 book. Keraunos (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response "World standard" according to whom? Pantone has a set of color names. Home Depot has a set of color names for its Behr paints. Benjamin Moore has a set of color names for its paints. Etc.—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note regarding beige: The color beige is shown as #F5F5DC because it is one of the web colors and that is its hex code. It is simply, utterly true that the color beige is color #F5F5DC.  It also matches the color shown as beige in A Dictionary of Color. Keraunos (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response How did Maerz and Paul accumulate the authority necessary to declare that a color name that had existed for centuries and that referred to a range of colors, thenceforth would mean one and only one point in color space? You accord them a remarkable amount of authority. Besides that, the very notion is contradicted throughout the treatment of color on Wikipedia. For example, take a look at Cerulean. As for every other shade, there's a box in the upper right that has a specific color point expressed as RGB and HSV values. And then, in direct contradiction to the precision implied by this box, the very first sentence of the article says, "Cerulean may be applied to a range of colors ..." (italics mine). If I were to place a Contradict tag there, no one could possibly be justified in removing it, because the contradiction is sitting right there, plain as day, and no amount of handwaving can get rid of it, unless one were to remove the true assertion, that the name refers to a range of shades. That would be a perversion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the solution there is to fix the color infobox boxes. I would like to see them expanded to include more information besdies the coordinates for example: Date of earliest usage as a color, Flags that primarily feature the color, Common pigments used to produce the color, etc. Then replace the coordinate section with a collection of optional coordinate sections that would start with titles such as "As a HTML/CSS Web color" or the like. PaleAqua (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per presence of other such color nav-templates. These seem to match Pantone and/or Web colors perfectly. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Considering that all these color names predate Pantone and the Web, it's a fallacy to declare these arbitrary conventions have overridden the meanings these names already had and become their real, objective meanings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nicholas Zebrun Films

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one blue-link, which is currently up for AfD as well. See also Templates_for_deletion, a related template and Articles for deletion/A Part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if the film article is kept (which looks unlikely), a navigation template is not needed for a single page. Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.