Air Force blue is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The members of the Canadian Air Force are sometimes referred to as "Crab Fats" by members of the other branches of the Canadian Forces, due to the similar hue of Air Force Blue to the fatty ointment that was once issued to combat pubic lice. (I'm not making this up!) Members of the British RAF are also referred to by this slur. Would this be too off-colour (no pun intended) to be included in a Wikipedia article? Naymetayken (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm downloading that PDF, just a warning to any others on dialups that it's 1.44MB so better to download than just follow the link. Any other sources for USAFA blue or any other variants of Air Force blue, anyone? Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That link is for the colors of the sports teams of the Air Force academy, which is slightly different than official uniform/etc. colors. United States Federal Standard 595C has a specification for “Air Force Blue” (also for “Air Force Forest Green”), which I will try to provide RGB conversions for sometime soon. –jacobolus(t) 21:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so US Air Force blue and US Air Force Academy blue are subtly different shades? I was suspecting that from the very name USAFA blue. Fascinating, and just the sort of thing this article needs. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "Air Force Academy blue" is anything except the color of the sports teams, and is frankly unnecessary to include on this page; it belongs on a page somewhere listing college athletics colors. –jacobolus(t) 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at what I've done... Happy for this information to be moved elsewhere, but it should be in Wikipedia somewhere, and should be easily accessible from both the USAFA blue and Air Force blue URLs.
My preference would be to expand this page so that all encyclopedic variations of Air Force blue are explicitly described here, both as to their colour (or range of colours in some cases I suspect!) and usage. Andrewa (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus is against the move. RAF blue can be written about as a primary example of air force blue within this article, and is not the only example of air force blue. Fences&Windows 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Air Force blue → RAF blue Per the section above, "Air Force blue" is a vague popular term used to describe a variety of shades inspired by RAF blue, some of which are not all that close. I just created a redirect for RAF blue, though, so I can't move this page over myself. EvanHarper (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. There's not enough material to justify separate articles for RAF blue, USAFA blue, and any other colours by this name, so the logical thing is to have one article describing all similar colours known as Air Force blue. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment We don't have that, though. I don't even know how you would feasibly have a page in the Category:Shades of blue series that actually dealt with many very different shades at the same time. If there must be two articles, perhaps RAF blue ought to have the current article text, and Air Force blue can be a stub article including a small gallery of various "Air Force" blues from around the world. EvanHarper (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
But there's currently no need for two articles. Why not just add this gallery to the current article (assuming some editor gets around to it someday)? If the term Air Force blue refers to several different shades as claimed, then this article should deal with them all. If at some future time there's enough material for a separate article on particular shades of Air Force blue, then by all means create separate articles then, but to do so prematurely will just mean merging them back. Meantime, there's no reason one article can't cover several subtly different but related shades of blue which share a common name, as appears to be the case here. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Support My initial reaction was to oppose this. However, a quick look at Google hits shows that RAF blue has a slight lead over Air Force blue (about 87,000 to 83,500), and is certainly as common a term in English prose. As there is little to chose between the two, it makes sense to use the more accurate term. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. As Andrewa says, there's really no need to have separate stub-like articles. Other similar colors used for other air forces can easily be described in this same article. Much better to have one medium-short general article than 2 semi-stubs, so in my opinion the slight difference in google numbers (such numbers are inherently unreliable anyway) is fairly irrelevant. –jacobolus(t) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree that there is no need for separate articles. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment wait a minute, renaming this article does not mean that there must be a separate "air force blue" article. Personally I am not in favor of two articles, as I have tried to make clear above. This is not a vote about whether to have two articles. EvanHarper (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a vote about whether as part of the process we now move this article and its history to the more specific title. Actually vote is misleading, the closing admin will look at the arguments not just count the votes. I'm not in favour of two articles either, but open to the possibility if and when we have enough material to justify it. See below. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I generally can't understand why people are willing to write votes on a talk page about the theoretical value of an "air force blue" article, when they are not willing to actually write one. We don't have an "air force blue" article. We have an article about RAF blue that is called "air force blue," and wrongly states that there is a particular defined shade of blue called "air force blue," when there clearly isn't. If you really are committed to having an "air force blue" article, maybe you should actually write one. EvanHarper (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Ask for comments, and you might get some. If you want suggestions of color-related articles needing writing/work, I can provide a list (far more pressing IMO than anything related to air force colors; for example, the article about blue is in pretty terrible shape). –jacobolus(t) 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Edit: the previous comment is intended in light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek tone. Evan: the main question I’d have is, do you really think it makes a heck of a lot of difference what the title is at the top of the article? Will readers be confused if it’s titled “Air Force blue” but much of the content is specific to the RAF color? The reason I see to leave the title where it is is that this article can be expanded in (IMO) more useful directions than an article entitled “RAF blue”. For example, it is my understanding from this article that several other countries air forces adopted similar colors to the British color, under somewhat explicit influence (maybe that's not true). But to be honest, it doesn’t make all that much difference by my standards what the title is. –jacobolus(t) 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hang in there, I know the process can be frustrating. I am quite happy to expand this article to include USAFA blue and any others we come across, but I felt that this wouldn't be helpful while this move request is outstanding. As for having an article on RAF blue, I don't think we yet have enough material for one, and several people have now said this quite clearly. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose moving the article. I put links in the article soon after I created it to the other Air Forces of the world that use different shades of Air Force Blue. It is simply a matter of going to those other articles and taking color samples of those logos and putting additional color boxes into this article. Until additional the color boxes are created, it is simple and easy to just go to the articles on the other air forces and look at their logos or flags to see the other shades of air force blue.Keraunos (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The RAF Air Force Blue has priority because it was the first air force blue to have been created and formulated. Keraunos (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on Air Force blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.