Talk:color, colour

Deletion debate
Nonsense. &mdash; 219.173.119.31 06:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * no, please refer to discussion in beer parlor. --Eean 16:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Although I don't support this concept, can anyone tell me if there has been any further development of this idea since November? If it has not had any practical support, that may be the best reason for dumping it. Eclecticology 01:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason that nothing's happened is that there was considerable resistance when we tried to actually implement the scheme, both principled (see discussions) and unprincipled (the random who started the present rfd entry). I can't speak for others, but I strongly support the concept, and strongly oppose the current "two pages both alike in indignity" approach.  For my part, if I have anything to contribute to gray or colour or blurglize or whatever, I will edit once until presented with a convincing reason for keeping redundant material around.  At which point I will flag down the next pig that flies by and hie myself to the nearest diner for a healthy portion of crow. -dmh 07:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that as resignation in lieu of support. Editing once is a reasonable strategy; if someone else wants to copy the material to the alternate spelling, it's their own time they're spending.  "blurglize:?? (portmanteau from blur and glaze - to put photographs out of focus imparting a romantic setting to pornographic photos?) - Sorry, I couldn't help it. Eclecticology 22:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should be more clear. The status quo is cumbersome for no good reason.  Fixing it is easy, but implementing this easy fix has met with resistance, partly because my first attempt at a fix was more complex and more of a break from current practice than it needs to be, and partly because the easy, non-disruptive fix that Eean tried to put in was repeatedly vandalized by someone who appeared to object to the idea that colour was not "the correct" spelling.
 * There have been a number of theoretical objections to the straightforward "consolidated" approach. I believe none of these would prove troublesome in practice, but practice had been effectively prevented.  Perhaps the party responsible has moved on to something else and we can try again.
 * I would not like to see color, colour removed. I would like to see it brought up to date if needed, and see color and colour pointing to it.  On the other hand, this is all something of a tempest in a teacup, as alternate spellings of this sort are relatively rare (most alternate spellings either have a clear primary spelling or can be used interchangeably). -dmh 20:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's silly. Each word should have a separate entry. There is no importance of one over the other. I realize databases normally shouldn't have two "almost" identical entries, but this is a database of words. Dictionaries are redundant, repetitive, pleonastic. Accept it. Move on. For those who are worried about having to edit two entries, try copy and paste.


 * Deleted. I've taken the leap of decisiveness!  The technique has not been advanced, and is not likely to advance.  After at least a week I will move the above, and some related discussions to something like Beer parlour/Consolidated titles unless someone has a better name. Eclecticology 19:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)