Talk:outer space
Request for verification[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense of the colour. Sounds like a paint-company catalogue item, not a usage I've ever heard. I've always wondered why Wikipedia indulges in assigning exact RGB values to such marketing terms. Do we have a policy on colours? Isn't providing a swatch over-specification for a dictionary? —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 15:25 z
- How else could one most easily explain a colour? How is that different from including an illustration? I don't see any problem with illustrating a color by means of a swatch. How does your concern fit into the RfV page focus? --EncycloPetey 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem isn't having swatches generally but suggesting that they correspond so specifically to colours. If you look at w:List_of_colors, it's quite clear that several of the pinks (for example) could be regarded as "cherry-blossom pink" (depending on light levels, personal experience of the plant, etc.), but it suggests that only this one exact swatch counts. That's true in some standard sets of colours in computing, but not generally or in dictionary terms. Perhaps we need to flag them as just approximate examples? Equinox ◑ 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- A general appendix with explanation would help. We already have an Appendix:Colors, but it lacks explanatory text. We could then use a template that both displayed a swatch and linked to suitable explanatory text as needed. --EncycloPetey 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem isn't having swatches generally but suggesting that they correspond so specifically to colours. If you look at w:List_of_colors, it's quite clear that several of the pinks (for example) could be regarded as "cherry-blossom pink" (depending on light levels, personal experience of the plant, etc.), but it suggests that only this one exact swatch counts. That's true in some standard sets of colours in computing, but not generally or in dictionary terms. Perhaps we need to flag them as just approximate examples? Equinox ◑ 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- My main problem with this is the lack of attestations for outer space as the name of a colour. I'd like to see it verified in real usage, not in a prescriptive paint-company catalogue or HTML specification, and preferably not with direct reference to such.
- A secondary issue is that we state that outer space is represented by HTML colour #001041. What is that based on? Isn't this prescriptive too?
- Yikes! I just followed the link to Appendix:Colors. Someone please tell me this is not a prescriptive fantasy without any basis in attested English usage. —Michael Z. 2009-08-02 17:40 z
- Some of them look very suspect (timberwolf, antique brass...); I wonder whether they were just ripped from some colour chart for a particular computing environment. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see that some of them correspond to (non-standard) HTML color names, as supported by web browsers.[1] On the other hand, many are common names, or have a long history in the arts, or are standardized elsewhere, like school bus yellow. I see that many were created by User:Sally Ku, who has been inactive since February.
- Anyone have a better suggestion than mass-RFVing any colour that looks suspicious? I don't think that's a bad idea actually, because it would sure be nice to add quotations which carry information about usage, context, and standardization of these colour names. But a mass RFV may be seen as provocative. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 01:49 z
- I support a mass RFV. Some of these really are bizarre nonsense, and the ones that aren't should be mostly trivial to cite, because colours are common terms. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't favor unnecessary citation work. If we do it en masse and folks get bored, we just lose entries, perhaps some babies with the bathwater. Maybe each of us pick three, one easy-to-cite, one turkey, and one tweener, so we know what we're dealing with. (It would be interesting to test how much agreement we would have amongst ourselves by going through twenty or so and each categorizing/ranking them by our expectation of relative ease of citation.)
- What constitutes a citation for these. Is inclusion in a catalog a valid citation? Would three catalogs from different manufacturers be good enough for inclusion? I think it would satisfy me. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I support a mass RFV. Some of these really are bizarre nonsense, and the ones that aren't should be mostly trivial to cite, because colours are common terms. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect each manufacturer would consider their colour names and recipes proprietary, which is one reason they come up with silly names. I would consider such a catalogue a prescriptive reference, not really a use, or even a brand name. On the other hand, if you find the name in use by different manufacturers, then that argues that it isn't proprietary. Let's see what we get.
- I'm game. I'll look up [N]navajo white, Indian red, and battleship grey/gray within the next day or two. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 00:48 z
- I'll try hunter green (ez?), hepatic (jaundice yellow?), and honeydew. I'm not sure that I could actually rank these. I might be able to pick a fraction I thought easiest to cite, but I quickly get into pure guessing (often as good as "informed" guessing).
- I'm game. I'll look up [N]navajo white, Indian red, and battleship grey/gray within the next day or two. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 00:48 z
- I always thought it was hunter's green. Good selection. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 05:17 z
- I notice that there are many uses of specific color names in supply lists for craft projects. That seems to make it less likely to be manufacturer controlled, especially if the crafts are different (thread vs yarn vs fabric vs water paints vs oils vs acrylics vs exterior house paint vs interior paint). DCDuring TALK 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added Citations:battleship grey and Citations:Indian red, and improved the latter entry. Reading about Indian red makes me skeptical of the colour swatch's hue. I'd like to see, e.g., that the colour described and indicated for this painter's and printer's pigment follows a pertinent reference, and not some twice-removed HTML chart or something (I'll work on it).
Try to find both noun and adjective citations; the latter was much harder to find for Indian red.
Shall we announce a colour-attestation work bee at the Beer Parlour? —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 05:17 z
- Navajo white (our navajo white is listed as #ffdead) is Benjamin Moore colour 947, still available, earliest mention I can find is 1975,[2] possibly 1968.[3] It's also Sherwin-Williams colour 6126 (#eadfc9).
- w:Navajo white claims the colour comes from the Navajo flag—possible, but sounds dubious to me. The flag was apparently designed in 1968, with a background described as “tan”.[4]
- The most prominent use of Navajo white is a variety of corn, first mentioned 1917.[5] There are also Navajo white pine, Navajo white wool, a movie character named Navajo White Eagle,[6] a mythological Navajo White Bead Woman or Navajo White Shell Woman, and Navajo white clay bodies.[7] —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 07:54 z
- We've strayed far out of outer space. I'll start a heading at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Attesting color names. Should we copy/move this to BP or just start anew there? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, sense removed. And I'd also support RFV-ing any color that you doubt. —RuakhTALK 14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)