Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Battlebox colour scheme

Anyone dislike the suggested pink color for North America as much as I do? I'd suggest something like below, with a buff or antique white for North America, with the Africa color darkened a bit for more contrast with the new North America color. --Kevin Myers 05:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

background:#ffcccc;	old North America, pretty in pink
background:#EEE8CD	new North America, buff and battle ready
background:#ccffcc	South America
background:#ffff99	Asia¹
background:#cccccc	Europe¹
background:#ddbb99	new Africa
background:#ffccaa	Oceania²
background:#ffccff	Fictitious³

Well, if you volunteer to update all the articles that use the old colour scheme, I won't object. Gdr 21:17, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Previewing some of the pages, I think my initial choice of "antique white" is a little too light; EEE8CD looks a little better. I'll test it out on American Civil War in order to get some feedback. --Kevin Myers 13:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like these new colors. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles on North American battles (I created most of them :) ) that you'd have to update, and even if you are willing, I wouldn't support. There's nothing wrong with the current color. At first I didn't like pink either but now I can't picture them without it. Also, the old color isn't pink, it's just a light red because red would be too dark and look odd against the blue link. Hundreds of other non-battle articles use this color, such as the Template:Superherobox which uses that color for any non-villains. --brian0918  13:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points Brian: You say "at first I didn't like pink either", but then add "the old color isn't pink." Hmmm. More importantly, your initial dislike of the pink, er...light red... is what is important: Wikipedia articles should ultimately be geared towards end-users, not addicts like you and I. We may get used to the pink, but the guy on the Internet who comes upon one of these articles is likely to have the same initial reaction both you and I had to the pink: yuck! Something to keep in mind.--Kevin Myers 14:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind much (because Mr. 0918 does the boxes and I don't bother with them), but I'll point out that the 'buff' color you selected looks more Confederate butternut friendly than could be politically correct. Olive drab would be more appropriate. [Yes, yes, just kidding. :-)] I'm somewhat surprised people went to all the trouble to have templates for such things and can't impose site-wide color selections from the templates themselves. Hal Jespersen 14:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your butternut comment is close to the mark: I tried to pick a color (or a close approximation) that was actually used on military uniforms in North American battles, while staying within the general scheme of the template system. My "buff" above is an approximation of George Washington's buff & blue Continental Army uniform, though a little less yellow so as not to conflict with the Asia color. --Kevin Myers 14:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I said I thought it was pink originally because I hadn't gotten used to it. Why pick the uniform of George Washington? Why not any other random uniform or, say, the color of the tradional war attire of specific Native American tribes, who have been here much longer than us? They've been in countless more battles in North America than any other groups. My point is that by picking out one color for a specific historical reason, you're purposely leaving out all others. --brian0918  15:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you think it's likely many American Indians went into battle wearing pink? ;-) More seriously: the color I've suggested is closer to a traditional North American military color, so it makes intuitive & aesthetic sense when used in the articles; I'm not sure we can say that about the Mary Kay pink. No one, unless they read this page, will likely associate the new color specifically with Washington. It's something of a natural earthy tone, neutral enough to work alongside most images in articles, including Native American scenes. Let's save the pink borders for the comic book heroes in purple tights. --Kevin Myers 15:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Read my last sentence again (or for the first time if you skipped over it). So, you're argument so far is basically, "I associate the color pink with women, and accordingly, weakness, so therefore any color which is slightly whiter in color than solid red is inappropriate for battles, because war kicks ass." How many people have you killed again? All I'm saying is don't fix what aint broke. --brian0918  15:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you're completely mischaracterizing me and putting words into my mouth (the straw man logical fallacy), so I'll heed the words of the classic adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." --Kevin Myers 16:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to argue with such illogical nonsense as "Let's save the pink borders for the comic book heroes in purple tights." and "the Mary Kay pink"?? I was just trying to play your game. And I don't think your color is... how do you put it?... "buff". --brian0918  16:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take the bait (too many years on Usenet to resist). First of all, neither of my two statements that you call "illogical nonsense" are illogical. You may not agree with them, but "illogical" actually means something; please try to understand the words you use. You cited (apparently in all seriousness, which should have been a red flag) the use of the color pink in comic book articles as support for using it in battle boxes; my quip is simply a suggestion to keep it in the comic book articles. Mary Kay is famously associated with pink, a shade close to the above pink. Illogical? Finally, "buff" is a color, the shade of which has been variously interpreted, sometimes not far from the color I've proposed.

Sheesh, I propose a color change, and out come the long knives. I'd hate to think what would happen if I'd propose something actually controversial. --Kevin Myers 16:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The pinkish/reddish colour makes me think of British redcoats and Mounties, so as an English Canadian it's fine with me :) Adam Bishop 15:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But pink is the color of blood once it has been washed down in the rain... We could not select a more robust color for this use. --Gmaxwell 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pink is, if anything, easier to discern from the other colors. I think the manliness of North America can survive a bit of pink. This is not the proper time or place to engage in slippery rhetorical games either. Just accept the old colors and try to focus on real encyclopedic issues, Kevin. Bickering over colors degrades everyone. Peter Isotalo 16:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I consider the graphic design of Wikipedia articles to be a "real encyclopedic issue" worthy of discussion. If folks prefer to use pink as Wikipedia's color-of-choice for the American Civil War, that's fine with me -- but it can't hurt to have hashed such decisions out. --Kevin Myers 01:41, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was "hashed out" here and a related version was also discussed on Talk:Military history of the United States. Since I selected and assigned the original colours (except the grey) I apologise for implying all North Americans are gay or whatever it's meant to be suggesting. Geoff/Gsl 02:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not gay, just color blind. ;-) --Kevin Myers 04:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be firm about this, but it is a non-issue. If one person wants to change a color and gets his way, more people will eventually try it and chaos will eventually ensue resulting in genuinely stoopid "color policies". Yes, I'm pessimistic, but I've been involved in a similar dispute at Swedish Wikipedia and it was not a pleasant experience. I would hate to see it waste people's time here as well. Peter Isotalo 14:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)