Talk:Azure

Proposed merge

I don't think it's useful to disambiguate Azure (color) from the use of Azure as a tincture. Tincture is merely a specific application of color, and could easily be discussed in all its intricacy in the same article. Please discuss at Talk:Azure. --Dystopos 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Azure - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Azure (heraldry) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Accessible language

Should the disambiguation page entry for azure (color) read "azure (color), a hue of blue"? Should it include "HSV"? 00:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I have removed "HSV" from the description for the entry azure (color). The point of a dab page is to facilitate people finding the topic they are seeking. Most people are not familiar with "HSV", so it is distracting and contrary to that goal. ENeville (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the point of a dab page is to facilitate people finding the topic they are seeking. That is why HSV should be in the descriptor, since it identifies the topic of the article, and distinguishes it from other possible topics that might be covered on a page entitled "azure". --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned by the pattern of repeated reversions. It is edit warring, which is not helpful in the short term, and drives away editors in the long term.

"HSV" is jargon, and an abbreviation of jargon moreover, which only makes it more impenetrable. It would need explanation even in an article proper, and doesn't have a place on a dab page, where all we really need for a description is the bare minimum, per MOS:DAB, which directs against anything more than what's necessary for distinguishing. Arguably, we don't even need anything beyond the disambiguator in the name, "(color)", per MOS:DABENTRY : "the description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."

Is there other, more accessible wording that we could agree on? ENeville (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, "color" is not enough of a disambiguating descriptor, since the heraldic sense is also termed a "colour" (as opposed to a "metal") in the jargon of heraldy. MOS:DAB applies here, and is the reason that "HSV" is necessary, as it is the primary disambiguating term between the heraldic and HSV articles on azure color. MOS:DABENTRY does not say what you imply it does; it points out that in many cases, further disambiguation is not necessary beyond the title, but that necessarily means (and the examples show) that further disambiguation can be necessary in other cases.

I don't understand why you are so strongly opposed to the extra three letters, or how you can be concerned about a pattern of edits in which you are an equal participant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about what works well for readers, and also what works well as a process for mutual editing on WP. For example, belittling another editor's position is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's also patently hypocritical in this case, if that matters. Please also observe that I haven't once reverted, but rather have made an effort to find a compromise of edits, as reflected by the edit history. And I initiated discussion here.

I think we need to bear in mind that many people searching for "azure" are simply looking for basic information on the broad concept of the color: probably examples, and perhaps some variations. Maybe they saw "azure" listed as a color option for a garment or colored pencil or something, and want to know what that will look like. They aren't even aware of a heraldic sense, let alone "colours" versus "metals", and that sort of jargon is, unfortunately, just distracting. By contrast, people searching specifically for "azure" in the heraldic sense will be looking for indications of that meaning in the dab entry. And they'll quickly find it. Failing that, if they look at azure (color), they'll see the hatnote, and failing that, they'll soon find the heraldic sense described and linked in the body. I think that angle is pretty well covered. What we need is some balance.

I propose "a hue of blue" to describe the azure (color) entry. If anything, I think "hue" may be a bit technical for many readers, who only think of '"azure"' as a "color". ENeville (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I had never heard of "HSV" before looking it up just then. If you just wrote "Azure (color), a shade of blue" or something along those lines, everyone would understand it. Writing "HSV" would be confusing and doesn't help anyone more. I see the need to distinguish it from Azure (heraldry) but I don't believe the exclusion of "HSV" will cause anyone to choose the wrong one. Remember, even if they do go to the wrong article, it will only take seconds to realise and find the correct article. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

But the whole point of the article is that azure is not a shade of blue under HSV. It is a separate one halfway betwen blue and cyan. The Azure (color) article is not about generic "azure", and we don't have an article on the English Wikipedia concerning the generic meaning. you have to go to Wiktionary for that. The Azure (color) article is about the HSV definition sense, and not about some generic sense of "blue". --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The article actually covers azure in HSV (and RGB), X11, historical, mineral-inspired, and foreign language senses, as well as listing related tones that people also call blues, like Brandeis blue. Again, what more accessible language, suitable for a dab page, do you propose to distinguish the entry? ENeville (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It can easily be seen that more than 90% of the article deals with the HSV definition by the accumulation of computer-defined variations. The additional mentions of other senses of "azure" in the etymology and "Definition" sections really belong on the disambiguation page, which is newly created. As far as "Brandeis blue", etc., I had moved that content to Shades of blue, as that is the logical place for that content, but someone moved it back here, even though there is no obvious connection with "Azure"; presumably there is some highly technical reason for this that has yet to be explained in the article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

These arguments seems like pettifoggery. Re the other colors described in the article, just having an HSV formula doesn't make a color "HSV" to exclusion. The information such as etymology that you refer to as appropriate for a dab page is completely inconsistent with MOS:DAB. And this dab page existed since well before you displaced it in 2005 to make way for the creation of the heraldic article, so why you characterize it as newly created is curious, to be generous. ENeville (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with just "Azure (color), a hue between blue and cyan"? Powers ^T 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's highly imprecise, since there are multiple means of defining colors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And in any of those definitions, is azure not between blue and cyan? Powers ^T 01:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Without doing additional research, I would not know, but neither would I know that in those systems it is between blue and cyan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No research is needed, as there are no useful color models in which similar colors are non-adjacent. Azure is simply a color between blue and cyan, regardless of the color model being used. Powers ^T 17:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"HSV" is jargon and is unhelpful for disambiguation. The term azure as a color description existed long before anyone attempted to define it in terms of HSV or any other scale. older ≠ wiser 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's why we need the "HSV" in here; the article is about the HSV definition, and not about all the possible meanings that previously existed. If you believe otherwise, then the article will need to be completely rewritten to reflect that, and the list of HSV "variations" will need to be removed. However, other editors insist that the HSV material belongs here, and that makes the article almost entirely about HSV definitions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this all seems extremely trivial. It may have been explained before, but Azure, as far as I can tell is a shade of blue, thus, making it a colour. Where is the confusion exactly? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 10:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• a shade of blue would be my choice. It is clearer and less distracting than saying "hue". And, as noted above, "HSV" is jargon--it's unnecessary for those who know what it means, confusing to those who don't, and reeks of POV-pushing, in violation of WP:NPOV. I recommend making a similar change to the disambiguation note at the top of Azure (color). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• a hue of blue is clearer in its meaning which is the purpose of disambiguation. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I see no need for the abbreviation HSV to disambiguate azure. As I understand HSV, every possible color is included in it, so if it is appropriate to put it here, it would be appropriate for every color name in Wikipedia. Also there are many other color identifying systems. Why would HSV be used here to the exclusion of others. Hue or simply color would work fine. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But not all color articles on Wikipedia are about HSV colors. Compare the article on Orange (colour), which opens by discussing variability of meaning, displaying variation, and identifying significance and common objects of the color, and which uses multiple definitions in the article. This article does not do this; only a single definition is given, and no variability is described. Rather, the HSV definition is given, and a series of related HSV colors are provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that the editor's objections fit into a pattern of disruptive editing.

Re the latest statements, I believe they misrepresent the article in important ways. For example, from immediately above and just above that (posted 03:15), the article is characterized as "almost entirely about HSV definitions" and having a "series of related HSV colors". In point of fact, the article includes an HSV formula for colors, but that doesn't make those colors owned by the HSV concept to exclusion. Please note that this point was already addressed in response to the editor's post at 19:44, 27 April, and deafly raising the same objection yet again seems argumentative. Please also note that other points raised in response to that post, such as what material is appropriate for a dab page per MOS:DAB, have also been ignored.

Furthermore, the whole "HSV color" line of reasoning raised in objection is moot because even if the article had only the one color wheel concept that's at the top of the article to instantiate azure, many readers are not technically acquainted with the topic they are searching for on WP, and such people looking for information on the color azure in general (as opposed to the heraldic sense) are not served by jargon such as "HSV" on a dab page. Please note that this point about non-technical readership, too, has already been raised and ignored by the objecting editor.

Even more than that, the purported "HSV definition" of the color is described in the infobox as "Azure (color wheel)", not "Azure (HSV)". And what about other descriptors for this particular concept, like HSL (the primary term at HSL and HSV) or RGB? There's no logic in insisting that "HSV" somehow brings superior exactness in description, even setting aside how inappropriate such technical language is for a dab entry.

I do agree with the objecting editor that azure (color) should probably be rewritten, or really just rearranged, to a format more like orange (colour) (or beige or mauve or chartreuse (color)). ENeville (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand, and do not open a reply with personal attacks. Discussion about me can happen on my talk page, where you have posted. This page is for discussing the article.

Your agreement that the article needs to be rewritten looks like a solid bilateral agreement. Can we agree on specific points that ought to be included in the article that are missing, and perhaps begin hunting down such information and sources that are needed, and restructure the existing article accordingly? If the article can indeed be redone to look more like Orange (colour), then my objections disappear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To follow up on the idea of rewriting Azure (color): it's mystifying to a non-expert that an article on one shade of "blue", with an entry in the "Shades of blue" navbox, itself includes mentions and samples etc of so many other "shades of blue" (Cerulean, Brandeis, Air Force, ....) as well as some bizarre unsourced statements ("French blue is a deep azure color commonly used in quality men's dress shirts.") There certainly looks to be room for a rewrite. Good luck. (I did my bit for Azure by creating the stub Azure (design magazine) and generally mopping up incoming links a while back.) PamD 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have edited azure (color) as I indicated. However, I don't think that it's realistic (or necessary) to predicate a conclusion here (about jargon on a dab page) upon a specific eventuality for that article, given both the ceaselessly changing nature of WP and the difficulty demonstrated here in agreeing on even a sentence fragment, let alone an entire article.

By the way, I don't believe that my previous opening was a personal attack, noting that "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack", rather it was a tempered observation on the path of discussion, relevant to all involved and important to progress. ENeville (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Including the mention of HSV is confusing and unnecessary jargon. Being overly specific and technical makes it seem as though the linked article is not the article that best describes the color in the general, straightforward sense, when it clearly is. APL (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Color Squabbles and Solution

Three paragraphs above, User:PamD wrote: "it's mystifying to a non-expert that an article on one shade of "blue"...itself includes mentions and samples etc of so many other "shades of blue"..."
The error in Pam's logic is that azure as a color description is commonly misused in English and so has become ambiguous.
It's cited in various references as signifying a color anywhere from cerulean to ultramarine.
Another ambiguous color example (and this one intrinsically so) is sky blue.
Anyone who has witnessed a cloudless, daytime sky from a Manhattan sidewalk, from mid-ocean and from an elevation above 10,000 feet knows that sky blue varies dramatically from place to place.

However, azure has an advantage as a color descriptive buried in the very word's etymology.
If properly used, azure designates a definite color which even has its own natural reference standard for comparison.
Azure is derived from lapis lazuli i.e. lazuli stone. Taken literally, the name signifies not only a particular mineral composition, but its provenance as being the Lajward region of Turkestan. Although a mineralogist, gemologist or geologist would have to confirm this, in general a mineral lode from a discrete region has a unique signature, i.e. a quite uniform and often definitive profile of impurities and conditions under which it was created and altered over time, all of which affect a gemstone's exact hue.

I believe it would be correct and informative for Wikipedia to go so far as to state that many synonyms for this color are misleading and actually misnomers.

I cite here Wiktionary. (See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/azure/)

• Old French azur, derived from Arabic لازوَرْد (lāzaward, “lapis lazuli”), dropping the l as if it were equivalent to the French article l'. The Arabic is from Persian لاجورد (lajward, “azure”), from the region of Lajward in Turkestan.
  

As a point of interest, I suspect that the usage of azure to signify various shades of sky blue, e.g. cerulean, likely stem from confusion with the word ozone as it was often used prior to public concern about environmental issues. Expressions such as "Off in the ozone", "Take in the seaside ozone" were popularly meant to signify fresh air, fresh breezes and by inference, fresh, clean sky.
Mykstor (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're reaching a bit. Lots of color names have, over the years, come to signify a much wider range of colors than their namesakes would imply. Or do you think that "purple" is only Tyrian purple and no other hue between blue and red? In fact, many cultures (like Russian) treat azure as a separate color rather than as a type of blue. It's hardly a misnomer to use it to describe the color of a typical sky. Powers ^T 00:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Azure: The Word's Very Etymology Specifies a Precise Color & Clears Up Much of the Babble Above

Regardless why people end up at this particular page, one thing is glaringly missing as far as pointing readers to knowledge. (We're foremost about learning, right?)
I strongly suggest a link be added to the list for those who want to learn what color azure technically and unambiguously refers to.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/azure
Mykstor (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually already there, in the template on the right, per MOS:DAB Wiktionary linking. This section has a very long heading, BTW. But the general info on source and ambiguity seem fitting for article on the color, or at least the Talk page there. ENeville (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

The above exchange seems to get far off-topic from the original RfC. Let's try to focus on the question being laid before RfC respondents - which is "Should the disambiguation page entry for azure (color) read "azure (color), a hue of blue"? Should it include "HSV"?'".

• Not include HSV. Two reasons:
  1. The dab page isn't supposed to contain any more information than is required to allow readers to understand which of several articles is the one they want to read. We don't want dab pages to grow longer and longer descriptions for each option - so we prune those descriptions to the minimum necessary to get the reader to where they need to go. If there were many articles about different colors that were all named "azure" - then we would need to provide more information in the dab page to help them do that. But even in that case, I kinda doubt that giving the HSV values for it would help more than a teeny-tiny fraction of our readership. However, this isn't a problem. There are only two articles that talk about this term as a "color" - and one of those is clearly about special nomenclature in heraldry. If I'm interested in some shade of blue called "azure" then the description for this article in the dab page (without the HSV values) makes it perfectly clear that this is the correct article to look at. That's enough - so we don't want to add more because it's a dab page.
  2. We don't add HSV values for other colors in their dab pages - I see no reason why azure should be any different. (Check, for example Blue (disambiguation), Red (disambiguation)). Uniformity within the encyclopedia is a good thing.

  SteveBaker (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Returning "Azure" to the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

While there is consensus that the colour azure would be the primary topic, there is no consensus on whether the page at Azure (color) should be moved to Azure, for various reasons below. So due to that and per WP:DAB, the result is apparently the status quo - No move. - jc37 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the namespace "azure" be changed from a disambiguation page [back] to an article specifically about the color?

• I realize there was some discussion about this a few years ago on this very same talk page, but am concerned that the solution arrived at was suboptimal. I believe rather firmly that anyone typing the word "azure" into a search box is expecting to get taken (directly) to an article about the color, not to a disambig page that lists such things as titles of songs or magazines, cities in Canada, or types of barley. "Orange", for example, is different: there is the color and the fruit, and both are obvious and different (if related) meanings. Not so with "azure", which to most readers means the color first and foremost. In this case, it seems to make the most sense to make the search term "azure" point to an article about the color rather than a disambig page consisting of widely separated topics. Other's thoughts? KDS4444^Talk 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment See Talk:Azure (color)#Requested move for previous discussion. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that there are two meanings of azure as a color: (a) the computer designated color (and associated general references), and (b) the historical heraldic color. People who come expecting to find the heraldic color covered would wonder why an article about the "color" does not include the heraldic tincture. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  That can be dealt with using a hatnote. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)* The color is clearly the primary topic. I'm surprised this even requires a discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Per Gamaliel, azure "is clearly a primary topic", unless the same color has an article with a different name. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. In heraldry it is not color, it is tincture, which may be of azure color. By the way, the article structure must be improved. Two things: Section "Etimology" mixes all things non-computer and must be split (however small it is) for clarity. On the other hand, all things RGB at the first sight look like OR to me: e.g., who said that azure is of hue code between 195 and 225? who says that "United Nations blue" is (a shade of) azure? And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes as it is the primary topic for this term per Gamaliel. The herald tincture info can be hatnoted. Ca2james (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. Azure (color) is the primary topic. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Color is primary topic. I don't see any other article in the disambig coming close to the status of primary topic. The heraldry topic can either be integrated into this article or hatnoted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. The colour is the primary topic. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• No. While I agree that an article on the color could be the primary topic, the sad truth is that no such article currently exists. The mess that is Azure (color) is nothing more than an over-glorified disambiguation page with an etymology section and infoboxes. That is, it is simply a list of topics and other articles that have "Azure" in the name. It is not itself an article. The contents of Azure (color) should either be turned into an article, or else transferred to Azure (disambiguation). --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. The color should be the main topic. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• No. According to page view statistics, readers are more interested in Microsoft Azure than Azure (color) so the color is not clearly the least astonishing result. ~KvnG 00:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• No. Same argument as Kvng. Wikipedia should be more "customer centric" and just serve the info that the majority of people come looking for. The fact that Microsoft Azure is at the bottom of the disambiguation page says that this corner of WP had been all but customer friendly. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It's a tough call, honestly. As as Kvng and PizzaMan have pointed out, the article for Microsoft's Azure is currently getting substantially more hits than the article on the colour. On the other hand, it's fairly self-evident that the topic which receives the most coverage in sources and which has the broadest encyclopedic relevance as a topic is the colour. Complicating this further is the fact that the second half of Azure (color) is presently a WP:WWIN mess. This doesn't really speak to the basic organizational principles that have to be used to ultimately decide this redirect discussion, of course, but it's hard to recommend a redirect with the bulk of the article host to a non-encyclopedic and poorly formatted digression into WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIR territory, courtesy of original research. I think this is probably the article that will end up inhabiting the namespace Azure, but I for one am in now rush to put it there until the article itself has received significant revision to bring it in line with quality standards. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Tough call or not, it is a storm in a teacup. Either way no kingdoms will fall. Many finer points have been raised, not all important and not all unanimous. And not all relevant. For example, the proposed improvements to the article would be desirable whether the article were made independent or not. The disambiguation function would be necessary anyway, and one of the topics would necessarily deal with colour. So my call is: make the article either Azure or Azure (color) and accordingly the disambiguation either Azure (disambiguation) or Azure, tidy up the text and the links, and forget about it. The number of hits on different topics in this case is not a knock-down argument; Microsoft Azure and Windows Azure plus a mention in the disambiguation are quite enough without descending to spamming. Another year or two down the line those names might be forgotten anyway, and then it is another change. KISS. JonRichfield (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.