Talk:British green

Merger proposal

I propose that British green be merged into British racing green. After doing some research, they seem to me to be the same thing. Adam9007 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the numbers in this article aren't the same as in British green.

RGB: #004225 versus #014225
CYMK: 93 24 85 68 versus 98 0 44 74
Saturation: 100% versus 98.5% (based on the stated HSV)
Brightness: 26% versus 25.9% (ditto)

(Side question: Can the RGB really differ by so little while the CYMK differs by so much?)

Is it that the numbers in one article or the other are wrong, or are they not the same color? What does your research show? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Many sources call #004225 "British racing green". And it says right here on Wikipedia that there's no agreement as to the exact hue of British racing green, leading me to believe these are the same. Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even List_of_colors:_A–F calls it "British racing green", with a link to that article. Adam9007 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British green needs better sourcing, or else it should be deleted. I see no reason to merge such unsourced claims into an existing article.

It's trivially obvious that shorthand forms of BRG will have been described carelessly as "British green" or "Racing green" at times. However this article goes against that: its only content is to claim that "British" green is somehow a different, distinct and self-notable shade. If it can show that, with sourcing, then it's a separate colour. If it can't, then it should be deleted. It would be wrong to merge in unsourced content claiming that "British green" is different to "British racing green". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Where in the article does it imply it's different from British racing green? Adam9007 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where it specifies a specific and different colour. It's either a trivial overlap, or it's an unsourced distinction. Neither are good things to merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge - The article is unsourced, original research and there is no evidence that it's sourceable. The lead image has a hex RGB color value of #124532; CMYK: 86% 46% 79% 51%; HSL: 158°74% 27%. As far as that goes, the HSV values for British racing green listed in List_of_colors:_A–F differs from the values in British racing green, and both (HSV values) are unsourced.- Mr X 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: According to a color converter to which I was going to give a link but Wikipedia says it's on the blacklist, RGB #004225 is CMYK (100, 0, 43.94, 74.12) and RGB #014225 is CMYK (98.48, 0, 43.94, 74.12). That confirms my suspicion that the 93 24 85 68 given in this article is way off. That CMYK corresponds to RGB #063E0C. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected (note past tense...) Ok, this whole thing was a waste of time. From what I can see and from discussion above, 'British green' seems to be simply a Japanese term meaning what in English we refer to as 'British racing green'. Add in the complete lack of sources and the contradictory colour values and there is nothing here worth the effort (or indeed possible) to save. I have therefore redirected this page to BRG. Pyrop e 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]