This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
And if you haven't noticed it already. There is a hidden comment on the Colors list. What do you think? Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s a reasonable set of topics (part of the problem is that Wikipedia’s coverage of color is in general disorganized and extremely incomplete), and I don’t think the addition of a template like that to articles would actually help anyone. –jacobolus(t) 21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that would be a better place, too, but apparently not many color editors watch that page, as I haven't been able to stir up any input to the deletion discussion. But I do like the color topics template better than the color list, because it can reasonably evolve as editors find better organizations or topics to add to it, as opposed to the color list template that has an unexplained notion of "major" could only grow to become a laundry list of too many colors. As to whether it would actually help anyone, I think that's not such a big deal, compared to the color list that actively misleads and confuses with its selection and categorizations of colors. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. It probably should be renamed to something other than "List of Colors" then. Do you have any input on a potential initial set of topics? –jacobolus(t) 02:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I changed the name and I will probably let the redirection name be deleted. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added this to the template, yes, the article is but a stub but the pastel color group does seem quite relevant, and this stub has suffered from being rather hard to find, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
IP editors have significantly expanded this template this month. I think it's getting to the point where it contains far too much information. Could those making the edits please excercise some more editorial discretion about which topics to include, and trim the template back to a manageable size? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)