Help talk:Using colours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Top-level palettes at thirty degree increments
Hue Border Header Accent Background
H0 #BFA3A3 H:0 S:15 V:75 #F2CECE H:0 S:15 V:95 #FFE6E6 H:0 S:10 V:100 #FFF5F5 H:0 S:4 V:100
H30 #BFB1A3 H:30 S:15 V:75 #F2E0CE H:30 S:15 V:95 #FFF2E6 H:30 S:10 V:100 #FFFAF5 H:30 S:4 V:100
H60 #BFBFA3 H:60 S:15 V:75 #F2F2CE H:60 S:15 V:95 #FFFFE6 H:60 S:10 V:100 #FFFFF5 H:60 S:4 V:100
H90 #B1BFA3 H:90 S:15 V:75 #E0F2CE H:90 S:15 V:95 #F2FFE6 H:90 S:10 V:100 #FAFFF5 H:90 S:4 V:100
H120 #A3BFA3 H:120 S:15 V:75 #CEF2CE H:120 S:15 V:95 #E6FFE6 H:120 S:10 V:100 #F5FFF5 H:120 S:4 V:100
H150 #A3BFB1 H:150 S:15 V:75 #CEF2E0 H:150 S:15 V:95 #E6FFF2 H:150 S:10 V:100 #F5FFFA H:150 S:4 V:100
H180 #A3BFBF H:150 S:15 V:75 #CEF2F2 H:180 S:15 V:95 #E6FFFF H:180 S:10 V:100 #F5FFFF H:180 S:4 V:100
H210 #A3B1BF H:210 S:15 V:75 #CEE0F2 H:210 S:15 V:95 #E6F2FF H:210 S:10 V:100 #F5FAFF H:210 S:4 V:100
H240 #A3A3BF H:240 S:15 V:75 #CECEF2 H:240 S:15 V:95 #E6E6FF H:240 S:10 V:100 #F5F5FF H:240 S:4 V:100
H270 #B1A3BF H:270 S:15 V:75 #E0CEF2 H:270 S:15 V:95 #F2E6FF H:270 S:10 V:100 #FAF5FF H:270 S:4 V:100
H300 #BFA3BF H:300 S:15 V:75 #F2CEF2 H:300 S:15 V:95 #FFE6FF H:300 S:10 V:100 #FFF5FF H:300 S:4 V:100
H330 #BFA3B1 H:330 S:15 V:75 #F2CEE0 H:330 S:15 V:95 #FFE6F2 H:330 S:10 V:100 #FFF5FA H:330 S:4 V:100

Colour generation guide[edit]

  • Easily generate similar palettes, from different starting hues, using colorblender.com

Empty template box[edit]

For your own use. Copy to your project-page, and replace in order: A?, B?, C?.

background:#A? border:#B?   background:#B? border:#C?  

Main Page color[edit]

Re: table from main page redesign discussion archive

I'd appreciate someone giving a concise summary of how the new main page colours were selected. (I'm presumming the saturation/hue remained the consistent variables, as shown?)

Then we can generate a few additional colour schemes that all fit well together, helping keep wikipedia consistently styled where possible. --Quiddity 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For the TFA/DYN sections, the the saturation/brightness values vary (as follows) with the hue remaining constant:
  • For the heading background, the saturation is 15% and brightness is 95%.
  • For the heading border, the saturation is 15% and brightness is 75%.
  • For the box background, the saturation is 4% and brightness is 100%.
For the ITN/OTD sections, the saturation and brightness scheme is the same as above, but the hue (color) is different. Same goes for the Today's featured picture section. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks. i eventually got around to making the table above ;) -Quiddity 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting external links[edit]

List of things that are pertinent, but not suitable for the guideline page itself. --Quiddity 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

American vs. Canadian spelling[edit]

How has it been decided to use the Canadian spelling for this project's page title?? Georgia guy 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See the first 4 points at MoS#National varieties of English, and the table at MoS (spelling). -Quiddity 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not just canada, as far as I'm aware, this is the spelling used in every English speaking country apart from the US Philc TECI 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. In everything else related to Wikipedia colors, it's spelled with the American spelling, but this, and only this, has the Canadian/British spelling. Perhaps there should be a bit more...consistency? ąĿÎąş (ŧąĿĸ) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changing all the American spellings? That would be a rather sizable undertaking. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
Not to mention every other difference in spelling. SaintDaveUK (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is covered by the Wikipedia Style guide, including the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, the spelling guidelines. The basic principles are discussed here.
  1. Consistency within article
  2. Strong national ties to a topic
  3. Retaining the existing variety
  4. Opportunities for commonality
I think there is little possibility for confusion so applying #3 makes sense as supportable and has the added benefit of requiring doing nothing. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 22:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk box colours[edit]

How come the colours used in the little box that pops up and says your talk page has been edited aren't included in this article. Philc TECI 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of colours used in the various infoboxes, that arent listed here. Just look at the wiki code to see what colour is being used :) -Quiddity 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just thought it was pretty central to wikipedia, and maybe it had been omitted by mistake. Philc TECI 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions needed[edit]

Important are IMO some technical facts:

  1. Most browsers use dark foreground colours, typically black for text, underlined blue for links, and a slightly different underlined blue for visited links.
  2. That's also the case for old browsers not supporting CSS. Therefore changing the background colour is tricky:
  3. Dark background colours are out - unless the foreground colour is also changed. Ideally checked with a service converting all colours to a black and white scheme, if it still works it should be fine also for the colourblind.
  4. Mixing legacy markup and CSS can have hilarious effects like a legacy black/blue foreground on a dark background, if editors use bgcolor="black" for the BG, and style="color: white" for the FG.
  5. Using a legacy <font color="white"> is deprecated. Violating that rule is an option, otherwise better don't use legacy markup for dark backgrounds.
  6. Outside of CSS stay away from the hex. #rgb notation, old browsers only know #rrggbb (six hex. digits). Maybe use one of the sixteen colour names, that's guaranteed to work on the most limited devices, cell-phones, PDAs, printers, whatever, as far as they support colours.
  7. Text browsers don't support colours. (They need them internally to display mixtures of italics / bold / etc. and logical style tags like <code> on text mode displays with a single monospaced font).
  8. XHTML basic and XHTML print don't support inline CSS. If available use class= references to an external style sheet, for links see Wikipedia:Customisation.
  9. See also my experimental page with links to a colourblind emulator. The interesting table above has no effect on legacy browsers (and often no effect is good news from my POV... ;-) -- Omniplex 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Allowed colors?[edit]

This section seems to be a bit abrupt to be added without discussion. On what basis are these colors "allowed," implying others are "disallowed"? The list doesn't seem to be all that consistent with the HSB/HSV style of designating color palettes either. Rfrisbietalk 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Really how many accepted colors are there? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

active / inactive?[edit]

In the See Also section, the page "Infobox Colors" appears to be INACTIVE, whereas the "WikiProject Usability/Color" page appears to be ACTIVE. Should their designations on this page be changed or am I missing something? Newbie Laurie Fox 06:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are historical/inactive. I've updated accordingly. (this page has been inactive a while too, needs help.. Usability/Color should be merged here, plus the list of items above..) --Quiddity 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Different colors?[edit]

Why do the color listed here on this talk page differ from the guideline itself? What one's correct? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at the darker color blue.) - Rocket000 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. The table at the top of this page was made based on the green from the main page. That's why the blue and purple shades are a little off. We should fix this. - Rocket000 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Other way around. The mainpage was based off of this palette. See this page's history and the main page redesign archives. I forget when or why they diverged.
As for fixing, the whole page needs a gentle overhaul, as discussed 3 sections above.
(and the table at top contains the ideal we were working from, of 60degree increments, not the actual implementation. Yes that should be made clearer). --Quiddity 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I was just wondering what colors (main page colors or this palette) should be used in making templates and such. Before I found this page, I was going with the main page colors but then I realized, by comparing side by side, most of the templates in use have slightly different shades. Was there any systematic way of determining the main page colors? (Like some system I can use to get different hues?) - Rocket000 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the chart would look like based off the main page (minus extended colors):
Wikipedia Color Chart
Hue Border Header Accent Background
H150 #A3BFB1 H:150 S:15 V:75 #CEF2E0 H:150 S:15 V:95 #E6FFF2 H:150 S:10 V:100 #F5FFFA H:150 S:4 V:100
H212 #A3B0BF H:212 S:15 V:75 #CEDFF2 H:212 S:15 V:95 #E6F1FF H:212 S:10 V:100 #F5FAFF H:212 S:4 V:100
H265 #AFA3BF H:265 S:15 V:75 #DDCEF2 H:265 S:15 V:95 #F0E6FF H:265 S:10 V:100 #F9F5FF* H:265 S:4 V:100
H0 #CCCCCC H:0 S:0 V:80 #FCFCFC H:0 S:0 V:99
I can't see any system here, and since these shades are so close to "60degree" table, I think I'll just use that instead. - Rocket000 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked David Levy if he remembered when/why the colors were changed, but he either doesn't recall either, or hasn't had time to reply yet. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --Quiddity 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

The article was created as Wikipedia:Colours and per WP:ENGVAR should remain there. I've move protected it at that location because of the recent move wars (which resulted in lots of double redirects). Moves can still be discussed here, of course. violet/riga (t) 10:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To note, most guidelines use U.S. spelling, I oppose the name.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

template colors[edit]

How come the templates now have their color in a little bar to the side? And do these colors mean anything?--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which templates? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
trivia (yellow), globalize (blue), advert (red)... that kind of templates.--190.74.108.43 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Article message boxes. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!--190.74.108.43 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Colors in tables[edit]

Since tables are the general way to present structured information, and presentation of structured information is often assisted by colors, I'm a bit surprised there is not more table-specific information and guidance here.

It seems especially odd that there is no information about the choice of colors in class=wikitable (#f9f9f9 for background, #f2f2f2 for headings). When I needed a third color for a table heading a while ago (in List of motion picture film stocks), I ended up choosing #ebebeb since it was 7 less than #f2f2f2 which was 7 less than #f9f9f9; but I was not aware of this page at that time. How were the table colors chosen?

Is there any guidance on colors to use within tables? jhawkinson (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia background colour[edit]

In addition to presenting the colours employed in the various title boxes, shouldn't mention be made of the Wikipedia's page background colour itself (#F8FCFF)? JGHowes talk - 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox colours as a customisable option, and its implications[edit]

Please see Template talk:Infobox Country#Wales country specific infobox 52 Pickup (deal) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this was not resolved, I've set up a RFC: link - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking[edit]

I there anything wrong with the use of colour in this article? BUC (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems fine. The Template:Denver Broncos has some hard-to-read colour contrasts though. The orange-on-blue in the title, and the black-on-orange in the groupheadings, should probably be changed. (And the title should be linked to Denver Broncos). I'd suggest the standard navbox colour schemes (or those found in {{NFL}}, perhaps), but any sort of dark-text-on-a-light-background is universally recommendable. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There were some concerns about colour being the only indicator though. Can see you see anywhere where that is an issue? BUC (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everything appears to be properly-redundantly labeled. However, I don't know the game at all, so I'm confused by a number of things. You might get more help by inquiring in this recent thread: Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Use of colour to convey information. Sorry I wasn't more help. (also, at the article, footnote:g seems to be broken, but I couldn't see anything obviously wrong?). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Color of wikilinks[edit]

What are the hex codes for the colors shown in Wikipedia internal links?
-What color is the link to this unvisited page?
-What color is the link to this non-exsistant page?
I noticed these colors are different from <font color="blue"> and <font color="red">. Also, what are the colors to visited, existing pages (they're more of a purple color)? Thanks for your help, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat skin dependant but some of the defaults are:
A standard wiki link you have not visited yet = 002bb8
A standard wiki link you have visited = 5a3696
A non-exsistant page you have visited = a55858
An external link = 36b
See Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes for links to all the information And more specificly to the default skin see http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css which was used to find the above color codes Dbiel (Talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dbiel! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
At least one stage darker for the standard wikilink would be the most significant improvement I can imagine in the WikiMedia software. Tim Starling recently told me that the colour was probably chosen on a hunch at the time (i.e., not trialled or based on any understanding of the psychology of reading). Tony (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Political background templates behind links[edit]

An article I do occasional work on, Virginia House of Delegates, just had a large table recoded to indicate political party preference via a background color templates, Template:Party shading/Democratic and Template:Party shading/Republican. This has led to a rather large number of links, blue and red, sitting on backgrounds of #B0CEFF and #FFB6B6. This appears to be a spreading usage in US political articles. Is it just me, or is there a serious contrast problem with this mix of red or blue text on red or blue backgrounds? Rklear (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Don't edit war over the colour of templates[edit]

I added: WP:Don't edit war over the colour of templates to the see also section, after seeing this:

  • Template:Infobox_NFLactive a huge RfC over the color of templates. Ikip (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • More specifically, it's over whether infoboxes need to adhere to the color-contrast guideline. Everyone here please go take a look and weigh in.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: No colors in body text[edit]

I'm increasingly irritated by angry fruit salad coloring like this, with random words in the body of the article colored. Would there be opposition to adding this to the guideline?

Colors should only be used in tables, sidebars and illustrations. Do not use colored text, colored links or colored backgrounds in the article body.

Off the top of my head, the only deserved exception I can think of is the habit of denoting some playing cards in color, eg. 2 2 3 3 4, in "technical" articles like List of poker hands. Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

linked specific diff (for once it is fixed)
Yikes! Yes, this needs to be strongly discouraged. Using color like this makes it harder to write, is invisible for some colorblind blind users, and is subjectively harder to read or could be considered ugly/distracting. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking I agree, though, we should consider what might count as justifiable exceptions (like the one mentioned above). JIMp talk·cont 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

These are NOT random words. Why did you describe them as such? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The colours deployed are those used in the table. The words coloured are those with that colour in the table in the article, which the words are talking about. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And as Quiddity says, "Using color like this makes it harder to write, is invisible for some colorblind blind users, and is subjectively harder to read or could be considered ugly/distracting." For the specific case of those Hong Kong metro articles, line color is worth noting in tables, but it adds absolutely no value to repeat it in the body text. Jpatokal (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I could be totally wrong here, but aren't there some colours which are "colourblind safe"? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If (truly) random colouring of words or background were a problem, then it might be something worth bothering about. However, I believe there are some style guides, or accessibility guides, which deal with colour use already. I can't be arsed looking for them; what about anyone else? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That style/accessibility guideline is WP:COLOR, and you're on its talk page. Jpatokal (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, the parent guidelines/projects WP:Accessibility and WP:Usability. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility and ergonomy review[edit]

You are right, Quiddity. This is both a Web usability and Web accessibility issue, here is a review of West Rail Line. Dodoïste (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

Most colors doesn't have enough contrast with the background, according to W3C's Colour Contrast Analyser.

Text or diagrams and their background must have a luminosity contrast ratio of at least 5:1 for level 2 conformance to guideline 1.4, and text or diagrams and their background must have a luminosity contrast ratio of at least 10:1 for level 3 conformance to guideline 1.4.

  1. East Rail Line : Fail (The contrast ratio is: 2.74) ; Foreground:#6699FF Background:#FFFFFF
  2. Tsuen Wan Line : Fail (The contrast ratio is: 4.00) ; Foreground:#FF0000 Background:#FFFFFF
  3. Tung Chung Line : Fail (The contrast ratio is: 2.91) ; Foreground:#FF663A Background:#FFFFFF
  4. Light Rail : Fail (The contrast ratio is: 2.07) ; Foreground:#DDAA66 Background:#FFFFFF
  5. West Rail Line : Passed at Level 2 (The contrast ratio is: 6.66) ; Foreground:#AA0090 Background:#FFFFFF
  6. Ma On Shan Line : Passed at Level 2 (The contrast ratio is: 6.99) ; Foreground:#8B4544 Background:#FFFFFF

Ergonomy review[edit]

On Wikipedia, every link is blue. Therefore, everything that is not blue is not a link. It is very confusing for the user, so please do not change the color of the links (and same goes for text: text is black).

Each kind of content has a specific color. New colors should only be used to indicate a new kind of interactive content.

Good and bad example of color use
Bad usability Good usability
<div style="color: #fff;background:#AA0077;font-weight:bold;text-align: center;">
West Rail Line
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
'''West Rail Line'''
</div>

West Rail Line

West Rail Line

Dodoïste (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfully clearly explained. Thank you for that work. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Overcoloured[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Overcoloured has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

Could we, and should we, merge this with Wikipedia:Accessibility?
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree where this is coming from, but don't fully agree with the proposal for a full-on merge. My opinion is:

  • The "using colours in articles" section belongs in WP:ACCESS.
  • If that move were to take place, then logically WP:COLOUR is no longer part of the Manual of Style, but instead a technical guide.
  • It may be appropriate to create a hatnote at the top of WP:COLOUR to the new section, such as You may have been looking for [[Wikipedia:Accessibility#Using colour in articles]].
  • But in my opinion it is desirable to keep a technical explanation of how to apply colour separate from the MoS guideline on when to use it. For that reason I'm opposed to a full merge. WFCforLife (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning that! I was thinking along similar lines myself, and I was really curious if someone would have a similar thought. We do have several Category:Wikipedia how-to articles, and it would make sense to me to do a split here, with the remainder being a technical howto doc.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
All of that sounds good. As long as nothing of value is lost, I endorse a partial merge. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done[edit]

Pretty much done, except for the page move. This project page has been move protected since 2007, so I can't change move it. {{editprotected}} Please move the page to Wikipedia:Using Colors and/or Wikipedia:Using Colours (I don't personally care which, "Colors" is simply the spelling that I don't have to think about at all).
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, why do we need this page move? Isn't it better to keep the more concise title? Ucucha 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really, because the page now is a How-to rather then being a guideline and How-to combined. The current name of this page should really redirect to Wikipedia:Accessibility#color, where the guideline content has been moved. Since this page is now only the how-to content it seems to me that the name should reflect that.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This page rename didn't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Article titles, headings, and sections, which says that titles should use sentence case (Like this), not title case (Like This). To fix the problem, please please rename the page again, from Wikipedia:Using Colours to Wikipedia:Using colours. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also removed the move protection; I'll re-add it when people see fit to move it to American spelling again. Ucucha 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Table color help[edit]

Hello, how can we color an entire column in a table please ? Polylepsis (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to Help namespace?[edit]

Would it make sense to move this page to Help:Using Colours? The current page contents seem more like the pages in the Help namespace than the Wikipedia namespace. Grondemar 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented or objected, I'm boldly proceeding with the proposed move. Grondemar 11:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Consensus[edit]

Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? Interested contributors are invited to participate at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tables from Talk to the Help-page[edit]

I strongly suggest to put the #Colour generation guide from here into thee Help-page. Very good & useful, explaining right what the color scheme are & should do .(Well, maybe change into "Color", all these English on this wiki ;-).) Also, the top-page table could be there. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (adding & sectioning) -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

help required at X Factor (uk series 6)[edit]

take a look at this. IMO there could be massive improvements in the use of color but i'm not really sure how to proceed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment RE: a new color being added to a series of color identifiers[edit]

A newly developed template has been launched, and it helps catalogue life using a color scheme. Please place comments regarding its color at Template talk:Taxobox colour#Veterovata. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

External Link to w3color[edit]

@Edokter: You removed a link to w3color that was added by 95.155.1.218. You didn't leave a reason in the edit summary. I thought the link was actually quite a good addition to the page. What was the reason for removing it? Zell Faze (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a gazillion color tools out there, and none of them actually pass WP:ELNO. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree.

WP:ELNO

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
    Not applicable as this is a help page, but if this were the ideal version of this help page, it would likely still not contain a colour picker. I think the link satisfies this requirement.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
    Easily passes. The page definitely doesn't misrepresent anything, its a tool.
  3. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
    Site has no malware.
  4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.
    I don't think this link is promotional. To me it seems a reasonable tool to link to from here. As far as I can tell the submitter doesn't have any affiliation with them.
  5. Individual web pages[5] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
    Website isn't selling anything, contains no ads.
  6. Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[4] See below.
    Site does not require payment for use.
  7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.
    Only accessibility problem that I can see is its use of colour and its use of Javascript. Both I think are reasonable given the topic at hand and the nature of what the tool is trying to accomplish.
  8. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details.
    Website uses Javascript. It doesn't require any plugins to use.
  9. Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
    Page is not a search engine result.
  10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.
    Page is not a social network.
  11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
    Doesn't appear to be a blog or a personal website. It looks like a pretty well designed tool for colour selection.
  12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
    Is not a Wiki.
  13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
    I would consider a colour selection tool directly related to a help page on Using Colour.
  14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
    It not a list of manufacturers or suppliers.
  15. Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools.[4] For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
    The site is not already linked to through Wikipedia's sourcing tools (or in this case, I would argue that any section of the interface, which is it also not linked to by).
  16. Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
    While I can't guarantee the reliability of the site. It seems pretty professionally made, which to me says its likely to be around for a while.
  17. Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.
    Link does not contain an affiliate or referral code.
  18. External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages.
    Item not applicable to help pages.
  19. Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.
    The website isn't mentioned in this help page anywhere.

What part of WP:ELNO does the link not pass? Zell Faze (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the page. This is a help page, which rarely links to external tools. Why should it be added? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This help page discusses how to use colour in articles on Wikipedia. It shows you the methods you use to color items and then lists commons colours used on Wikipedia. This list of common colours though does not cover every situation that might come up (nor should it). I think linking to a colour picker tool would be useful for those situations where the list of colours on this page does not have in it the specific colour that you need in the article. Certainly such situations do come up, and I suspect an editor in such a situation would be reading this particular help page, thus making it a convenient and useful spot to stick such a link. Imagine the following, you are working on an article (or more likely a Wikiproject page) and for some reason (why is not relevant here, but such situations are bound to come up) you need to colour something a deep Burgundy. You open up Help:Using colours and read the page. You now know how to display the colour that you want, but it wasn't listed in the list, so you really aren't quite sure how you go about displaying that colour. If there was a link to a colour picker at the bottom of the help page, of course you would follow it and you'd be able to quickly determine the colour code that you need to use.
I should also add, that I'm not dead set on this specific colour picker (though it does seem to be a reasonable one to use). I just think that a link to a colour picker of some description would be very helpful to someone reading this page. Clearly 95.155.1.218 (talk) agreed. Zell Faze (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)