Talk:Orange (colour)

Orange

Orange-colored Kurti means Orange-colored Tunics, which are commonly worn by Sufis in Sindh since the 13th century.

Questions and Answers

Q: - Is Orange the brightest colour visible to the naked eye?

I don't understand the question. What are you intending to fix (keep constant) when comparing brightnesses? Dicklyon 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the question might be referring to the color to which the human eye is most sensitive. The answer to this is actually "bright" or "neon green" at wave length of 555nm (on the yellow side of green), with the corollary that red and violet (at 380nm and 760nm) invoke the least retinal response in most humans. This response shifts to the blue side (~507nm) in dimly lit situations because of the transition from cone to rod receptors. These numbers are averages and differ slightly from person to person, and are completely different for different animals. Street signs are often in orange because of the durability of orange dies, as well as the strong contrast shown by orange against black. See [Sensitivity of the human eye at giangrandi.ch]. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

orange dYes, hmm? 65.58.203.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

Etymology

The etymology section makes little sense. If the Indo-European word naranj is what the orange fruit derives from, then how possible can the next sentence say "Before this was introduced to the English-speaking world" and talk about Old English? Old English is more recent than Indo-European and seems to be an artifact from when the word origin was listed as Arabic. Artrenadys 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Computer monitors

Should there be mention of the difficulty monitors (or other display units) have with displaying orange correctly? Oranges displayed are rarely fully representative of how the colour will print. Various shades of orange seem dull/brownish on most screens I've used. In fact, on some recent Apple Macintosh monitors, I've seen red displayed as indistinguishable from orange. Mr.bonus 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Something of great concern with printing in particular is that subtractive coloring must be used to achieve any given co lor. Since the CMYK color system is so unreliable relative to a monitor's RGB color system, it is unsurprising if orange does not display properly relative to a print version. Different lighting conditions for the user also affect perception of color: under some light conditions certain colors may experience drift because of quirks in human perception. It isn't necessarily the monitor: orange is simply a color which does not fare well under careful scrutiny. Nihiltres 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

Every other color page I have seen is color. This one should be changed to match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.195 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Likewise, Wikipedia is based in the United States. In actuality, most people aren't enforced to use British English, (for example in places such as Hong Kong). Therefore, wouldn't it make sense that since Wikipedia is based here, that terms such as these By Default follow American English? --Onejsin (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE COLOR 65.58.203.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

Color-wheel orange

Whose idea is it that the "colour wheel" orange should be exactly half way between red and yellow in a gamma=2.2 RGB space? That's what the combined statement and code #FF7F00 imply. Why not take the green primary to half intensity instead of half code value? Is there any source for this concept at all? It certainly doesn't agree with the web-color definition of orange. Dicklyon 21:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I couldn't find any color theory basis for the value other than midway in RGB and HSL, so I explained that. Dicklyon 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A Short Lament

I've been reverting the inevitable spelling "corrections" for a while now on this article and have reached a few conclusions on the folks who compulsively change "colour" to "color." I should first note that I'm from West Virginia, where there ain't no "u" in color, nor in rumor, nor humor. Well, at least not in color.

The correctors fall into three tribes:

• Proud spelling chauvinists who are convinced of the inherent superiority of their variety of English.
• People who believe that Wikipedia is an American project, and who are convinced that all spelling must therefore reflect American practice, WP:ENGVAR be damned.
• Saddest of all are the people who really don't know that there are other ways to spell colo(u)r.

I feel better now.

Acroterion _(talk) 01:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You forget the people who note that this page is not of inherent importance to a region where the English spelling is preferred and who note that it is very inconsistent that the color page itself uses the spelling "color". -170.223.0.55 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm closing this as no consensus. Interested parties can of course carry on debating the issue, and at a time when a consensus is agreed to move, list again at Wikipedia:Requested moves. At this moment in time I see no value in maintaining the listing, as it would likely be permanently listed, since once it moves, a request to move it back would be made. It might be better to focus energies elsewhere. This is a fractious issue, and has been as long as I can remember. Hiding T 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orange (colour) → Orange_(color) — English American spelling of "color" —Fraggy4 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support This page should be consistent with all of the other color pages. They all use the English spelling of color, and Wikipedia is all about consistency. Fraggy4 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an international project; we recognize the variations within the users of the English language. My fellow Americans should learn to deal with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, color is the better spelling, it would also be consistent with color. (I'm British, in case you were wondering.) - MTC (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose rename everything to couleur :) 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instead preserve the beautiful many-coloured diversity of English Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Fraggy, remaining consistant with other similar articles. TJ Spyke 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• There needs to be a moratorium on this. This is the sixth request, and I doubt it will be any different. We have WP:ENGVAR for a reason. There is no justified arguments for having a certain variation of English on a page that is not a related to the topic (e.g. British spelling on the article England). As such, there is a convention that whichever is the original variant used, we stick with it, and do not change it. While personally I would prefer it to be Americanized, I do not believe there is enough reason to warrant a disregard of the aforementioned convention. I (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the article WAS originally spelled color (according to the move log at the top). TJ Spyke 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• And it was probably moved because the first few revisions of the page used colour. There are no move logs for this page, do the logs not go back that far? I (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yet another lame edit war over the MOS. If you are so concerned with consistency, why don't you recommend to change color to colour? 71.106.173.211 (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, just because not every English speaker is American doesn't mean that the American spelling isn't about 4 times as common ("Color" - 521 million, "Colour" - 130 million). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Google stats are often quoted to make some point, but are rarely useful. This is a case in point. Every single webpage designer in the world is FORCED to use the <font color> tag even if they're French, German or whatever <font colour> (that's supposed to be in green) doesn't work. How many pages do you think there are documenting html codes? Jooler 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does that warrant not following the conventions? I (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What specifically about WP:ENGVAR are you invoking? I am stating that American English is more widely spoken and since there is no room for a common ground, the American English should take precedence by force of numbers. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In my estimation, it has been colour the majority of the time, and therefore should remain that way. I (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:ENGVAR, WP:LAME, and six previous discussions. --DeLarge (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. If you look at the first version of the article it starts out as The color orange. If you take the time machine back here it is clear that color was the correct usage. And for the record what exactly is English? That is ambiguous in terms of a language. It is American English, Australian English, British English or Canadian English or one of probably a few more variations? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that in that diff, color without a u is used once, while with a u it is used three times? And in the original draft of the article, both versions were used? And with a u has been the predominant style for most of the article's history? I (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the 'Nth' time for same reasons. Jooler (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Reasons include 1) user ease, 2) clarity, 3) consistency with other articles, 4) the fact that it was originally written color on Wikipedia, and 5) the higher numbers of users who use the color spelling. The name of an Encyclopedic entry it not the forum for multiculturalism. Were this article specific to a country speaking the Queen's English, it would be another matter. Moving this article will do no injustice to those who use non-American English, nor will it in some way ill-legitimize or diminish the diversity of the language. Lack of any disadvantage and existence of many advantages leads me to support this move. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1) How does it improve user ease? 2) Why is it more clear that way. 3) The only legitimate argument IMO 4 )Both spellings were used in the original page, and it has been with a U for the majority of its existence. 5) Numbers do not have bearing in WP:ENGVAR; only ties to certian forms and original version do. I (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't invoke ENGVAR. Renaming this article will improve user ease as it will reduce confusion for a great number of people. Wikipedia is used by a great number of children who have internet access. As was noted above, a far greater number of American English speaking people write on the internet than do speakers of other forms of English. From this it is reasonable to infer that a greater number of American English speaking children use the internet. As the young are more easily confused than most, I want to minimize confusion as much as possible for these children. This change will also lead to a more clear article name for everyone else looking for information about this color, because of greater numbers and because of conformity (this is exemplified by the repeated questions above about the name). This speaks to both my reasons 1 and 2, although they are separate. What is most compelling, however, is that there are only advantages of moving it, and no material advantages of leaving it as it is. I should add that "get used to it," as seems to be stated in opposition, is not a reason. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look at this guide -- After review of WP:ENGVAR, consistency is a preference inferred from the section on Consistency within articles. Consistency will be achieved both within a group of tightly knit articles and within the WikiProject Color; and so, the spirit and reason for WP:ENGVAR promotes this change. I don't really want to get into lawyerism, but according to proposal title box above, this page was originally "Orange (color)." because of this, WP:ENGVAR specifically promotes this move. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. User:Nslsmith has engaged in votestacking with posts to four other users: User:Animum, User:Tempest115, User:Monobi, and User:Atropos. Three of those users have since commented here. He has also engaged in similar behaviour on another move request. The user has been warned of this behaviour. --DeLarge 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. DeLarge's claim of vote stacking is completely unfounded, I did not inform any editors who have ever voted on this topic. I have only informed other editors which have asked questions about why this article has the name it does currently. There are no repeat votes, no repeat debate actions; this behavior does not reflect vote stacking. I have been excluded from other debated by DeLarge in the past, possibly because of my differing opinion. I work to include anyone who is interested. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. If colour were in the majority and this was Orange (color) I would support changing it to colour too. There has been no objection to this move that is based on what actually makes sense; instead all opposition is focused on the wording of engvar (a policy whose purpose is simply to stop edit wars). It is most logical that we ignore all rules and do what makes sense, making our encyclopedia as consistent as possible. Atropos (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just reread WP:ENGVAR and I can't see any mention of its purpose being simply to stop edit wars. I think otherwise; It's an important part of what English Wikipedia is. It's not just British speakers who are catered for by this guideline, but all non-US varieties. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. 164.116.241.246 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose again. This particular case is what WP:ENGVAR was drafted for. Learn to leave things alone, and accept that the English-speaking world is "large, and contains multitudes". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support keep it the same. Mønobi 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – Keep it titled in the dialect in which the page was originally authored. —Animum (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the article WAS originally spelled color (according to the move log at the top). Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that isn't neccesarily true. There is no discussion in March of 2004, so I don't know what it's referring to. In addition, this comment says the article was originally titled with a u. There are no logs for this page being moved, although that could be because of how far the logs go back. I (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. Ordinarily, I would oppose citing retention of original spelling, but seeing as how Red, Yellow, Green, Purple, Brown, Black, and White all use color, perhaps a change is in order. Grey uses the British spelling of the tint/shade/lack of hue, but uses the word "color" throughout. Further, the main article is spelled Color, not Colour (which redirects to the first), and the relevant WikiProject is WikiProject Color, not WikiProject Colour. For the sake of consistency, change it back to color, and change the spelling in Blue to match with the overwhelming consensus among all of the other related articles. Horologium (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Every other page concerning colors uses the English spelling. This article should not be exempted from the current layout of colors on Wikipedia. Fraggy4 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Colour" is the English spelling. You want to replace the English spelling with the American spelling. Not every Wikipedian is an American; we better get used to it.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that an earlier iteration of this topic has a hallowed place at WP:LAME, and maintain your sense of humo(u)r accordingly. Also, note the six previous discussions, tallied at the top of the page. Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Google

The mention in the survey above of Google invites comment...this is IMO the best example I've yet seen where we can guarantee that the Google results will be quite worthless however the Google search is devised. WP:NC talks of the greatest number of English speakers (the exact wording of this has been the subject of quite recent discussion, but that's today's version!). That's not the greatest number of English website authors, it's the greatest number of English speakers. There's no reason to expect this to correlate to the Google results, and there are many reasons to think it won't. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some editors keep making the same false claim, that Americans are the majority of English speakers. This simply isn't so. Between the English and their present and former subjects, the clear majority of the world's English speakers are using a more-or-less English variety of the English language. Andrewa's comments above address the nonsensical assertion that Google results constitute reality. All they reflect is what's put online by those privileged enough to put their writings online. This group, of course, is disproportionately composed of white male Americans of the middle and upper classes. That doesn't mean that we white male Americans are a majority of anything, including Americans. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Google stats are often quoted, but rarely useful. This is a case in point. Every single webpage designer in the world is FORCED to use the <font color> tag even if they're French, German or whatever <font colour> (that's supposed to be in green) doesn't work. How many pages do you think there are documenting html codes? Jooler 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Children

From the survey above:

Wikipedia is used by a great number of children who have internet access. As was noted above, a far greater number of American English speaking people write on the internet than do speakers of other forms of English. From this it is reasonable to infer that a greater number of American English speaking children use the internet.

Perhaps, (and I did say perhaps) but even if this were true I don't think it's valid to go from there to saying that English Wikipedia should be US-centric. For one thing, Internet access is growing and will continue to grow in other parts of the world, especially among children, see for example OLPC. For another, realising that speaking English differently does not make a person wrong or inferior is an important part of any English-speaking child's upbringing. How old are these children? If they're accessing Wikipedia in a manner where there's no supervision sufficient to resolve this confusion and make it instead a blessing, should they be referred instead to Simple English Wikipedia... which just calls this particular topic orange. Andrewa 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, however, consistency is least confusing for everyone. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not make everything British spelling then? I (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because everything except this and Blue uses American English, would be my response. Why change eight articles when changing only two will accomplish the same standardization? Horologium (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Had these articles all started off with British spelling, or were this the only of the colors not spelled with a British Spelling, I'd support that. Neither spelling is wrong, but one spelling is more consistent than another in this context. In other contexts, it makes more sense to stick with British spelling. Here, it is easier and better to fix one title instead of many. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British English tag

Given that this move has failed for the 6th or 7th time. I've going to slap a British English tag on the page, and that should be the end of it. Jooler (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A British English tag is inappropriate for this page as it is not written in British English, nor does it relate specifically to a British topic. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "orange" does not specifically relate to British English. The fact that "colour" is used in the title and in the article does not mean that the article relates to British English. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag is appropriate. It says that the article is written using British spelling. Whether or not it is related to a British topic is irrelevant in terms of the template. I (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag is there to inform users that the spellings used in the article should not be changed willy nilly. It is an information tag. Jooler (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article but on the talk page. If need be, make the hidden comments bigger and bolder. JIMp _talk·cont 00:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"so called?"

Why is it "so called redheads" in the burnt umber section? Plus, I do not understand why the hair color part is in that section at all, plus it seems that the hair color part is an opinion, (the fact that I disagree with it's opinion may be noted) as the hair color known as red (that without dying) is able to cover many different shades and not just one shade of orange, and is therefore misleading. Oh yeah, and what is up with the "so called?" I would edit it myself, but, I don't know if I should while in my condition, as my grammer is sort of off along with my syntax. Melune (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I am also a bit sleepy as I type this, so please don't bug out on my spelling nor on my rambling, but flu plus sleep problems means a bit of grammer problems Melune (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry bout that, I kept saying burnt umber, when I meant burnt orange. Also, sorry again for my ramblyness and divergence of language, as I am still a bit woozy from influenza, (the flu, I don't know which people normally call it in everyday conversation and interaction, as I really don't have many normal conversations nowadays I'm afraid. OOps forgot to sign Melune (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

updated.--oRange 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Title Change

Can someone change the title of this page to "Orange" to end the edit war? I mean the view title, the one on the top of the page. Or change it to Orange (c) or something? --202.156.14.83 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What edit war? Orange goes to a disambiguation page, as it should, and Orange (c) means nothing. Every month or so, an American tries to "correct" it, and ends up learning something about other variants of English. Acroterion _(talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

whats the (c)?--oRange 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnaranja (talk • contribs)

Request for clarification

I don't understand why this page settled on colour. The WP:ENGVAR page says that topics with no strong ties to either custom should keep the spelling that the page was started with. From what I can tell, this page started with the spelling color and was moved in March 2004. -170.223.0.55 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was started 08:46, 13 August 2002 by User:Jeronimo (who I believe is from the British Isles) with a mixture of the two spellings; two edits later it was switched to "colour" throughout, and has remained that way in text ever since, except for WP:LAME reversion wars. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the original version? BOVINEBOY2008 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here. It's easy to get via the article's history link. Originally it used "color" while still a stub, but in third edit it changed to "colour", which stuck. It's too late to revisit that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I see. What name was the page started under? It's difficult to tell that from the history. -170.223.0.55 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I've removed the incivil comments that were here. Please note that en.wikipedia uses both American and British variations of English. The relevant policy is WP:ENGVAR; please read it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Distinguishing red from orange in language" article proposal

Please read here for new article proposal. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: possible move to Orange (hue)

This isn't a real proposal yet, so no !votes required. Please don't think this is another imperialistic American seeking to invade British soil =D I'd just like to start a discussion the prospective possibility of a move to neutral territory, per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality-

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.

• Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article names. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties fixed-wing aeroplane (British English) and fixed-wing airplane (American English).
• If one variant spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking.

~~~

Articles such as English plural and American and British English differences provide information on the differences between these major varieties of the language.

So. What kind of effect might this have? For example, to the other col[o|ou]r articles? --King Öomie 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for that. -132.183.138.201 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to throw a monkey wrench, but I'd predict such a discussion would get oppose votes because of the technical issue of what the first sentence of the Hue article currently says: "Hue is one of the main properties of a color" (emphasis added). The Orange article currently lists different variations of Orange, each having different color characteristics. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I could actually see hue working for other articles, but in the case of orange one of interesting details is that oranges and browns have the same hues, and it's actually the relative shade that distinguishes the two. See File:Optical grey squares orange brown.svg for an example. I'm sort of surprised the article doesn't mention more than this than the slight reference of brown as a "dark orange". The other common cases like this are pink and red, or in some cultures light blue and dark blue. PaleAqua (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why Was The "Medical" Section with Mrs Susan Hogan, the Alleged Tetrachromat Removed?

Hi folks, that was me. The reports on Mrs Hogan are wonderful as a speculative exercise, but I cannot locate anything authorative to back up the claims. The source link from her section went to a local paper in Pennsylvania, which quotes speculation by persons who have never met Ms. Hogan. This is exciting to think about, but just not solid enough evidence to meet Wikipedia standards. Sorry. 8-( Ken McE (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

All that damn nonsense about Mrs. Hogan is back. Someone seems to want it here so I'll leave it and settle for tempering the wording this time. Ken McE (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of orange by Netherlands

The history section says:

Orange is the national colour of the Netherlands, because its royal family of Orange-Nassau used to own the principality of Orange (the title is still used for the Dutch heir apparent). There is no etymological connection between orange (the fruit and colour) and Orange (the name of the principality), and the similarity is fortuitous.

This contradicts itself, by stating that the colour orange is used "because" of the principality of Orange, but then stating that there is no etymological connection between the colour and the principality. I assume the latter is correct and the causality implied by the word "because" should be removed, but I leave this to an editor who knows for sure. -dmmaus (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bash. Does that clear it up? Cnilep (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion section

The section on the religious significance of Orange talks about orange being the color of Hinduism, then in the accompanying photo it says "Orange: the color of Buddhism". Is orange also the color of Buddhism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephjoaquinmartin (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(consistent) spelling

I know this has been discussed at least 6 different times (with the last round ending up with more votes for changing colour to color, but without a clear consensus being reached). However, although I do not prefer one spelling over the other, due to the heavy use of color elsewhere on en.wikipedia (WikiProject Color, Category:Color, Color, List of colors, List of Crayola crayon colors, Index of color-related articles), I think consistency obliges us to retitle it. The Manual of Style is there to "encourage editors to follow consistent usage and formatting", not to be an unmovable rule used as justification for not making Wikipedia better. Remember, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. I think changing to color here (and on blue and the tiny number of other color-related articles that use colour) is an example of using common sense. Here, I think internal consistency should be extended to encompass all color articles, though not necessarily every instance of the word colour throughout Wikipedia as a whole. I think we can be bold and civil here & not devolve into a lame war, personal attacks, or even bad etiquette. Your thoughts? Earthsound (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. Spelling doesn't need to be consistent across Wikipedia, only on particular pages. Trying to do anything other than what that page recommends could well stir up a hornet’s nest. (Personally, I’m pretty ambivalent w/r/t your suggestion.) –jacobolus (t) 06:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RETAIN the spelling shouldn't be altered. Agree with jacobolus's comments about stirring up a hornet's nest - the argument over the extraneous 'u' has already been listed at WP:LAME. PhilKnight (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your replies. I understand what the letter of the guidelines say, which is why I pointed to them & reminded that they are not steadfast or immutable. I didn't see any reasoning for keeping the status quo, other than pointing to the suggestions guidelines & reminding that a hornet's nest may be stirred. Again, I think the need for consistency among the color articles far outweighs the general-rule-of-thumb-style-guideline that is suggested, imo, more for general articles across the board as a way to keep peace & keep edit wars from ensuing over silly things like spelling. It's helpful to read one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (which one would think would give it greater weight than the little nuances of the guides that change over the years): see "ignore all rules" and "use common sense". From an end-user perspective, it makes no sense reading about colors in color-specific articles with one spelling, only to hit another spelling in a tiny fraction of the color articles, including two of the more popular/used colors. Can you see where I'm coming from here? I really don't know why the guidelines keep getting used as the sole justification here when they can be broken to make wikipedia better. Earthsound (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Define "better" here. From the point of those who use British spelling, you would be making the project worse, more Americanized, in defiance of one of the more charming customs of the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Orange Mike. I believe I've already done that. By "better", I mean logically consistent. Whether we use color or colour for color-specific articles, article titles, etc., is not my concern, as long as it's consistent. This has (for me) nothing to do with British vs. American spelling, but instead has everything to do with reading and experience consistency. The chief end being to improve Wikipedia's readability, especially for end users who don't know that Wikipedia doesn't care about spelling edit wars nuances. You bring up the Manual of Style (like many before you), but don't acknowledge that the guidelines are just that, guides. They should be broken/changed, especially to improve Wikipedia. Why am I suggesting color, here? Simply: it is used in the vast majority of color-specific articles, categories, the WikiProject, etc. I'd like to repeat what the 5th pillar of Wikipedia is, for those who haven't followed any of the links that I've included in the discussion here: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe I've outlined a solid reasoning for moving the few color-specific articles, etc. from colour to color, even though it may disagree with the letter of the style guide. Earthsound (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The main reason is that these kinds of bikeshedding arguments are a big waste of time; most of our articles about colors and color topics are awful agglomerations of trivia, with no attempt at comprehensive treatments of art history, the trade-offs of various pigments involved in the color, the chemistry of objects naturally taking those colors, the science behind the visual perception of the color, the cross-cultural naming and significance of colors, &c. &c. Instead of worrying about color/colour, I suggest you pick an article (this one might be a reasonable choice), and go do a few hours of research about the topic, and then add what you learned. That would be much more time-efficient and more ultimately useful to the project than changing the spelling of color one way or the other. In other words, so long as the content is mostly crap, we shouldn’t worry about the spelling. –jacobolus (t) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IAR doesn't trump consensus, nor may it be used as an excuse to enforce an individual peeve. WP:ENGVAR is there to avoid pointless edit wars and general time-wasting that detracts from the broad improvement of the encyclopedia in the name of enforcing a false consistency. Acroterion _(talk) 20:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback & discussion, though trivializing my reasoning as "bikeshedding" or "an individual peeve" is not honest or accurate, in my opinion. Having a consistent spelling within color-centric articles on en wiki is not a "false consistency", it contributes to internal consistency and a professional, polished readability. Take a look at any other encyclopedia and you'll see this type of consistency. They even pay people to do it: see copy editing. I don't think improving internal consistency within color-specific articles is a waste of time at all. On the contrary, having a tiny fraction of color-specific articles use one English variation and the vast majority using the other contributes to the perception that WP is amateurish and unmatured.

As I mentioned, I do not care which variation is used. I do care about wikipedia's quality, as you can see from the types of edits I make. I agree that quality articles should be a bigger concern than something as seemingly small as spelling, but I do think that the color-specific articles are a good threshold with which to maintain consistency instead of, in this case, limiting it to just consistency within the article itself. It's a small step that improves WP overall, in addition to other contributions of substance within the weaker articles themselves.

Acroterion, the inverse is true of consensus & IAR, as well. Although a clear consensus has not been reached in the past several discussions (thereby leaving it as is), consensus can change, is not immutable, and changes are to be expected. "According to consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Your insinuation is that I've used IAR as an excuse to enforce my "peeve", when I think the opposite is quite clear from what I've written. I point to IAR as a reminder that policy is not unbendable or unchangeable, especially when ignoring it will improve WP. As you'll notice, I do not engage in edit wars, which is why I'm discussing it here. :) Your imputation of false consistency is not backed by any reasoning. Moreover, you haven't shared why you think a consistent spelling across color-specific articles is not an improvement.

Finally, keep in mind that WP rules are descriptive and not prescriptive. The order of descending importance is 1) product 2) process & 3) policy. Earthsound (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a Bit of Humo(u)r

No references to John Boehner or Jersey Shore? The Speaker of the House and Snooki must be very disappointed with the writers of this article.

By the way, did you notice that I put a u in parenthesis in the subject? That was on purpose. The majority of topics in the Discussion section are about changing the title of the article. As an American who likes randomly spelling things British sometimes, I'm here to tell you guys something; you're over-thinking it. In all honesty, British and American spelling variations for the word colo[u]r don't matter, if I type in orange, orange colour or orange color into either the Google or the Wikipedia search engine, the first and most prominent result I get is this article. So quit wasting E-ink on something that truly has no importance. You're all smart people, and I'm sure that your time is worth more than this article's topic ever will be, so stop wasting (y)our time on this, and get (y)our heads working on something more relevant, like solving World Hunger, creating World Peace, or fixing my World of Warcraft errors.

―67.180.86.254 (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about colors are not the place for making fun of political figures, however much those figures may deserve it. Sorry. –jacobolus (t) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought Wikipedia articles were about expressing some relative truth, whether qualitative or quantitative. What if I cite an irrefutable source, like Barrack Obama, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart?

―67.180.86.254 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the article title (probably for the 100000th time)

Why not have it be "Orange (colo(u)r)" so it includes both the British and the American way of spelling the word? - Bagel7^T's 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because it's not WP style to do so. See WP:MOS and WP:AT. The nested parens are a novel touch though. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We could do it the regexp way and name it Orange (colou?r).—Chowbok ☠ 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but user interface options (probably, depending on the region for IPs) could solve the problem permanently. There are several wikis (Serbian Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, Kazakh Wikipedia) which allow conversion between scripts. Here the conversion of bulk of the text is not required, and some more subtle solution may be satisfactory. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Name Change

I seriously do not understand why the current spelling is in place. Yes, I understand that this is not the American English Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia. However, there is a total inconsistency with every other page I can find. Lime? Uses Color. Gold? Uses Color. Violet? Rose? Orchid? Eggplant? All uses Color. Someone please explain to me why this color page should be the ONLY color page not to use the spelling 'color'? Otherwise, I will have to escalate this further up the chain. --Tarage (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and change the name if there are no objections or explanations as to why it is different. I'll give it one more week before I make the change. Otherwise I'll assume that this is consensus. --Tarage (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:RETAIN, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another."

This has been discussed at least 7-8 times over the past several years; there's simply no consensus for it to be moved. Given the past failed move suggestions, this would certainly be considered a controversial move, so attempts to move it should go through the process identified at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation as to why this article does not match any of the other articles. I was ignored for over a week. Since both of you have decided to challenge this, perhaps you could answer me. Believe it or not, I don't care what English is used, only that it is consistent. What say you? --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave an answer, but I'll clarify a bit more - it is the way it is due to two reasons:

• per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline, specifically the subsection linked to at MOS:RETAIN which states (in part): "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another."
• per multiple past move requests which have failed to achieve consensus supporting a move/rename. Those prior requests are viewable in discussions further up on this page, and in the archives of this talk page at (archive1) and at (archive 2).

If you disagree with the results of those prior discussions and wish to make a new formal request for a move/rename of the article, instructions on the established process for proposing a controversial move can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. Yes, the MoS does not support name switching between different variations of English, but that does not cover the general inconsistency between this name and every other color name in Wikipedia. Surely you agree that this is a problem. Again, I have nothing against using a specific type of English, I just don't understand why consistency is being thrown out the window. Please, instead of quoting guidelines at me, explain to me why consistency does not apply here. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because consistency is not a core value here, but respect for the varying forms of English language use is. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100% with OrangeMike. WP:ENGVAR is a well-established policy, and consistency between related articles does not factor into it. You're wasting your time pursuing this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that bettering Wikipedia as a whole is never a waste of time. If this is not the proper place to address this very real problem, then I welcome a suggestion as to where to go next. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no "very real problem." As long as this is an international encyclop(a)edia we will have UK, US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Indian usage, among(st) others. This is not a bad thing, and provides an opportunity to teach people to respect the fact that there are other flavo(u)rs of English than the one they learned/learnt at home. There is no compulsion to consistency of this kind on WP, and there is a very real, practical compulsion to avoid pointless changes. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion. As to your question on where to go next, I've already pointed you twice to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves; which is the established process for determining if there is community support for a controversial move (and a move request that has not established consensus after multiple prior discussions certainly would qualify as controversial). However, before starting such a discussion, you would be well served to review and understand the outcomes of all the prior move discussions on this talk page and the two existing archives of this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above by others, there is no guideline or policy to require that there be consistency between related articles - the closest we have is WP:ENGVAR, which states that usage should be consistent within a single article - but makes no suggestion that other related articles should be a consideration. That same section in MOS:RETAIN also states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." - which feeds into the second point I brought up: multiple prior move discussions have already failed to establish such a consensus, and I see no evidence at this time to suggest that consensus has changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that you are wasting not only your own time, but the time of everyone involved. The reason that WP:ENGVAR is strongly accepted concensus is that it prevents most of the lame edit wars and endless discussions that would otherwise occur. Please note that WP:RETAIN strongly discourages this discussion even taking place. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am saddened by this state of affairs. The fact that trying to help Wikipedia become more coherent and uniform is frowned upon only serves to strengthen the misconception that Wikipedia will always be a second rate form of encyclopedia. I had hoped to help the project become more widely accepted and respected, but things like this make me seriously disillusioned. You win, another broken user. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're "broken" over an added "u"? Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is odd that this is the only one spelled differently. Not to mention, it's part of a project about color which uses COLOR, no U. Thus, it's not "just to switch from one correct form", it's also to maintain uniformity. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate, uniformity is not a core value here, but respect for the varying forms of English language use is. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not the only colo(u)r page to use Commonwealth English. Blue does as well, and Gray redirects to the Commonwealth Grey even though that uses "color". I'm sure there are other examples. This one is only obvious because of the disambiguator in brackets. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• See also Cream (colour) and I bet there are others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.20 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue or azure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orange_(colour)&diff=557284656&oldid=557262623

Yes, in historical works (before RGB’s definition of blue became dominant) the complementary of orange was commonly called “blue” (German: Blau). But nowadays the standard term for near-spectral colours between RGB’s blue and cyan is azure. Although “blue” may denote azure (along other nearby hues), the word “azure” is preferred because is much less ambiguous. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but in the RGB system it's called blue. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about the complement of orange. Orange is 100% 50% 0%, and so its complement must be 0% 50% 100%, not 0% 0% 100%. Blue is 0% 0% 100%, and it is the complement of yellow (100% 100% 0%.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I jumped the gun, was thinking of yellow for some reason. Perhaps Incnis was right to call me a dick for it. No, that wasn't productive, was it? Anyway, find a source for what it's called, or omit it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Azure (color) article says azure is 0% 50% 100%, so it must be what we want. Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Will http://encycolorpedia.com/ff7f00 qualify? The difference is in only one point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with things like 0080FF and 0% 50% 100% is the implicit assumption of linearity in a colorspace that's well known to be very nonlinear. And the trouble with "azure" is that there are not standardized tertiary color names in the RGB system (or if there are, find us a source). This book and others call it "blue-cyan". Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I'm seeing sources that describe the complement of orange as "blue green". Another way to find the complement is on a color wheel rather than with RGB numbers. Best to take the line out altogether if sources and definitions don't agree. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Etymology of the word Orange- A differing hypothesis.

Ok, I used to play a mmorpg (Dark Ages) that had a very deep level of player involvement. One could enter contests with literature entries etc. So during the course of creating a lore entry I had decided upon doing one related to colour codes. While I researched into the gaelic languages in order to get the ancient gaelic names for colours to use as the 'names of the glyphs' for my entry, I discovered that there was no ancient gaelic word for orange. I also learned that the early irish had no word as well (I think) as its been around 8 years since I did the research).

So I was a bit dissatisfied with the current etymology as I looked at that. I decided to approach the issue of naming the colour in the context of my lore through the eyes of someone who had available neither a word to represent the colour and access to ancient celtic and roman languages (as these are the 'Old tongues' within the context of the game)

I decided that a person would only have CAUSE to require naming a colour if they SAW a colour for which they had no ready word already. I thought up 1 word garm? I think it was? anyway it was the ancient gaelic for beak but I was a bit dissatisfied with that so I kept looking. The latin word for gold is or. So I thought, well sometimes the SUN is a rather orange looking colour. especially in the northern hemishpere around the harvest time. Even now its all about orange and black right? So by extrapolation of the Ancient gaelic word for Halloween -Samhuinn; sam, summer, and fuin, end, sunset, we get the fuin out of it. So such a type of person might readily look up to the sun on a October evening and said of it to be a Golden Sunset -Orfuinn / Orhuinn. It was at that point that I realized I had come almost full circle back to the actual word Orange and that it wouldnt take many generations or accents for Orfuinn or Orhuinn to evolve into Orange.

My hypothesis is that individuals speaking dialects of ancient gaelic, and latin such as the people of the dark ages to early middle ages of the british isles could have easily developed the word and in fact did.

It is interesting to note that the celtic druids had special festivals related to seasons and harvest and the sun, so there would be a pretty good reason for then to have a word to represent the colour of the sun during harvest. this word could have easily passed back into arabian lands during the periods of the crusades or earlier through trade and people speaking to each other, and in some course the j sound got back in there. I assume that in most likelihood due to it being a turbulent time in history with few litterate people, actual records that may prove my hypothesis may not exist but it explanation actually sounds a bit more reasonable than the stuff the last person to formally consider the etymology of the word. O and there is the added fact that the gaelic language has the glutturel stops or whatver. I think that in communicating the word to arabic people they werent able to inflect the word "properly" or something and it just got that j sound at the end. Sorry guys for not sounding and writing more professional looking. I only have a grade nine education and I am a new editor to wikipedia so I don't know the conventions (& odd jargon) you seem to have.

Thanks, Davnoctu (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to get this idea out here for discussion.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, so while it's certainly possible that someone will come along and share their opinion on your hypothesis, you'll probably have better luck at the Language reference desk. — Reatlas (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to Orange (color) to be consistent with Color

Move to Orange (color) to be consistent with Color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.2 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A perennial comment, but there's no requirement for consistency or standardization on one national form of English. See WP:ENGVAR. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Long-standing consensus over several discussions. Some other pages use "colour". Dark Sun (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)