Talk:Isabelline (colour)

Animals Low‑importance

Isabelline (colour) is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Can we please move this back to the original article? Both are so small, seems a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the split was done due to disagreement over a color infobox being in the original article. I agree only one article is needed. Perhaps the infobox could be placed in a separate section (i.e., "Myths and origins") along with the paragraph about the color's first use as a color name. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let this cook out for a bit, I'd like to hear Keraunos' views, as that is who split the article in the first place. Last time I moved something too fast, people got upset, so I'm trying to be good this time... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note now a merge tag is up, I 100% wholeheartedly support this merge. Please! Go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert

I find it truly sad that a contributor is unwilling to respond to my explanations and just stubbornly reverts my edits while sending me to complain to someone else, as if my edits were less valuable or less welcome than those of a registered user. I have been trying to explain that the article cannot refer to Archduke Albert as Albert VII when mentioning an event that took place 18 years before he became Albert VII. We do not mention Grace Kelly as Princess Grace when we discuss her acting career; we do not mention Barrack Obama as President Obama when discussing his career as a senator, etc. Albert's case is even more tricky since, as I have explained in vain, he ruled the Netherlands 40 times longer than he ruled Austria and to describe him as ruler of Austria in a sentence that deals with something he did in his capacity as ruler of the Netherlands 18 years before becoming ruler of Austria is simply silly.

Besides, the Manual of Style clearly says: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564." 84.202.132.249 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correctly taking the matter to the talk page where it belongs. The point here is that we are discussing a myth that the name of a color came from stained underwear. This has got to be one of the most ridiculous editing spats I have ever seen. The side players are really very minor, if you really think that the piped link is needed, fine, but the rest is just silly. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible first date "Isabelline" appears in English printed materials

Hello all,

I am contributing to Wikipedia for my first time, while I am doing a fair bit of research into color names, their origins, etymology, and so on. During the research, I found this page refers to the origin of the color name "Isabelline" in English print in 1859. However, I would like to share the first appearance of the term (in the same context, as a color name referring to an animal's coat) in the book, "The Magazine of natural history and journal of zoology, botany, mineralogy, geology and meteorology, Volume 4" by Edward Charlesworth, 1840, pp. 85-87. It's a minor change but I am glad to have the opportunity to share it.

Frizznickrz (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Frizznickrz[reply]

Hm, as far as I can tell you didn't change anything; the article still claims first use in 1859, and references the OED. By the way, how can you know that the appearance in 1840 was the first one – does the author seem to invent the term on the spot? Otherwise, perhaps we should avoid the issue, and rephrase as "the OED guys found no usage before 1859[ref]; this[ref] is an appearance in 1840". JöG (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]