Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple vs. violet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 14:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Purple vs. violet

[edit]

Rather pointless page, that seems to struggle with the distinction between "colour" and "shade" Alai 02:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, also note that nothing links to it. Not notable at all. Ryan Prior 03:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I again wonder whether or not this fits the speedy delete "Very short articles with little or no context" criteria. — Phil Welch 04:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge with parent articles. — Phil Welch 10:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nonsense Fawcett5 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with you lot. — JIP | Talk 04:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The rewritten version looks OK. No vote. — JIP | Talk 10:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Xcali 06:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't provide info as author doesn't even know the difference or at least didn't mention it. Speedy delete. Such info is better placed in existing articles anyway. Mgm|(talk) 07:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and merge with parent articles. Mgm|(talk) 10:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Article was rewritten. Above delete votes may not refer to the current article. Mgm|(talk) 10:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look much like a speedy candidate now! Either keepand rename, or merge with the two parent articles. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to purple. (I've already merged the content — Chameleon 16:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge/redir to parents. Radiant_* 14:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with parent articles. Scimitar 14:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Zocky 14:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M with purple. Fawcett5 14:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Purple and redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- This is about a very real psychophysical phenomenon. The article is badly written and needs a better title, but so what? Nor does it make sense to merge this with purple or violet -- this is about a general color perception issue, not about a particular color. ----Isaac R 17:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel strongly that this is more closely related to colour perception than to the colour purple, then make the appropriate edits to Colour:Colour perception, but there is no need to keep this as a separate article. — Chameleon 17:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That suggestion has some merit. The only problem is that Color is too big and needs to be broken up. The section you mention would be a good basis for a new article on Color Perception. The material in both Purple vs. violet and Color#Purple versus violet could be merged there. I'd support such a merge. But I can't accept an illogical merge with Purple (why not Violet?), and will not change my vote from Keep as long as that's the most popular merge. ----Isaac R 22:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why to purple, and not to violet? Well, because violet is a purple, for anyone's money. It's not like the results of a "merge" consensus here is binding on article content until time immemorial: for all intents and purposes, voting for "merge" has the effect that the content ought to be kept, but not as a stand-alone article. If it ends up in an article other than the most popular "merge" suggestion, it's not like the VfD police will hunt you down and make you move it back. Placing it in a new article Colour perception would certainly be ideal, but "someone must go forth and write said article" is definitely beyond the competence of the VfD process... Alai 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Purple. I understand there are perceptual issues involved, but I still don't feel this article frames them well. Firstly, the usual terminology as I understand it is indigo and violet, given Newton's insistence on crowbarring both of these into the spectrum for his own nefarious reasons, despite very few being able to readily distinguish two distinct colours with the naked eye. The implied distinction with purple is to confuse matters enormously, as surely most people would agree both _are_ "shades of purple". Secondly, colour perception is a much broader topic than just this one issue, which makes very little sense picked out in isolation. Alai 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erk! Violet is a purple in much the same way that orange is a red. Purple and violet are enormously different and I think that very few people (one, at least, clearly) would ever think of calling the two the same thing. And no, indigo and violet miss out the red part of the range completely and totally ignore purple - the reason for this being you ignoring the "back-loop" of the spectrum that is necessary if you have colour names for admixtures of the colours at the two ends. If the information is to be merged, it should be merged with b0th parents - as I suggested in my original vote. The idea of a colour perception article isn't bad, though 9and given that my MSc was in visual perception, perhaps I should have a go at it...). Grutness...wha? 05:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Violet (color). If the consensus ends up as "keep," I suggest renaming to "Difference between purple and violet" or something similar. "Purple vs. violet" sounds like some sort of little league baseball game. --Xcali 16:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is, as far as I can tell, not verifiable. In my understanding, the idea that "purple" and "violet" have specific, encyclopedic differences is debatable. In many contexts, the words purple and violet are synonymous. This article is unencyclopedic and only becomes worthy if sources are cited that are in themselves notable and widely accepted to be authoritative. If such sources are found and cited, this should be merged. If they are not speedily produced, I vote to delete. Ryan Prior 20:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Will Harvey Schiffman from Rutgers do? Grutness...wha? 01:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it interesting that some people in this debate seem to think that purple and violet are the same and therefore the article is unneccessary, whereas others think it's worth merging this item with purple and/or violet. This debate is therefore a perfect example of what the article is referring to - the confusion as to whether these two quite different hues are or are not the same colour! Grutness...wha? 02:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Shades of Purple: as stated above the confusion is more between indigo and violet, both being shades of purple. --Phil | Talk 15:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indigo could be seen as a shade of violet, but it is certainly nothing like purple. Read the articles on the colours purple and violet and you will see that they are completely different colours. Read the article on Color circle and you will see that there are good psychophysical reasons why this is so. Read the article on Color theory and you will see that this difference holds true in art as much as it does in science. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, being colour-blind, I have a sneaking suspicion that when you "normal" people talk about the difference between blue and purple and other allegedly different colours, it's all just a conspiracy to get me to say that I can see something that isn't really there (à la the emperor's new clothes).  ;) — Chameleon 13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it would go as "Purple vs. Pink is a fictional show in Pure Pwnage Episode 4...", except it's violet instead of pink. Hmm... Grue 11:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "...purple and violet cause confusion for many people." True, but delete, unless we want an article for Red vs. magenta, Burgundy vs. dark red, Colour term only women use vs. green, etc. No Account
  • Redirect. To Mauve. ~~~~ 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its interesting, what they did above. they crossed out all the delete votes that applied to the old article, since we're now talking about a re-written one. i think that is a very good idea - most of my good articles that got vfd'd a while back cause they started off as pissy stubs would have got through if i knew that! Well you learn something every day, eh? I certainly did by reading the purple vs violet article, and even if i do say so myself, wikipedia is a place to LEARN. thats half the reason im here. Anyway... i better go and cook some tea, catchas all l8r eh! THE KING 06:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Purple: this is already half done anyway. However, perhaps first neutralise the point of view. I don't buy the line that this is a case of confusion. It a clear case of differing ideas on what the word purple means. I argue that purple includes indigo and violet. What other word in the English language is there to cover colours between blue and red? Can you argue that no such term would be useful? - Jimp 10Jun05
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Purple_vs._violet&oldid=1138264438"