Jump to content

Talk:Saffron (color)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saffron (color). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English spelling

[edit]

What do other editors think on the applicability of WP:STRONGNAT, which states, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation" to this article? Should the article use Indian English spelling? AusLondonder (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 09 May 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. This argument came down to differing interpretations of elements of WP:ENGVAR and the related WP:TITLEVAR policy, about which there was no solid agreement. Several supporters made good points about strong national ties to India per WP:TIES, but a majority of participants did not find this persuasive (even one of the supporters found it weak). On the other hand, several opposers brought up WP:RETAIN and these arguments were not convincingly countered other than the TIES argument. As a result, I find the consensus to be against the move. Cúchullain t/c 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Saffron (color) → Saffron (colour) – WP:TIES – AusLondonder (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but I would argue it has strong national ties to India AusLondonder (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History of saffron deals with saffron the spice, not saffron the colour. And the culture section of this article does mention many India-related stuff. RETAIN mentions TIES as an exception. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History of saffron mentions the color in a couple of spots. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TIES supersedes MOS:RETAIN and WP:TITLEVAR. Also, the article currently uses inconsistent English, with "centre" and "colour" being used in the article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) TIES does not supersede the RETAIN or TITLEVAR; they go hand-in-hand. 2) Even if it did, there is nothing to suggest this color (or any color) has strong ties to any one country. 3) I suggest you read WP:STICK. Calidum ¤ 21:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, get a petty comment in there about WP:STICK. I've read it. Have you? It says "If you have "won"‍ —‌ good for you. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win"" AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this colour has strong ties in many areas to India. And just to let you know. The Flag Code of India uses the spelling "colour" AusLondonder (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can see both arguments here, but I am not convinced that the article is sufficiently weighted towards South Asian topics that South Asian spelling varieties need to be used by default. Therefore, MOSRETAIN would seem to apply. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I can see a connection to India, and to E. England ?, the connection is not a Strong national tie to a topic which would justify the change. Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The WP:ENGVAR used in the article is actually inconsistent, so WP:RETAIN doesn't apply. The national tie isn't all that strong, but it doesn't have to be because there is no consistent ENGVAR. I.e., the "strong national ties" analysis doesn't really arise in the first place; either spelling would be okay, and there are multiple rationales for the Commonwealth spelling, and zero rationales for the American one (it's not even a North American one – even a strong majority of Canadians use "colour". AmEng simply has no leg to stand on in this case, even if ComEng's legs aren't the strongest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saffron (color). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs

[edit]

@EvergreenFir: I don't know if you're just not done modifying the Religion section, but right now there's just the statement 'Sikhs regard saffron as a "militant color"', which doesn't line up well with the image caption on the side that says the Nishan Sahib is the "Flag of the Sikh religion" (which is also what the Nishan Sahib article states). And could you possibly include a quote from that source about it being a militant color? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: good point. I'll look up sources on the Nishan Sahib. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now. Thanks for putting in the work. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The majority of editors participating in the discussion do not consider the ties strong enough to override the presumption in favor of not changing the spelling style of the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Saffron (color) → Saffron (colour) – Strong ties to India and was originally the other way around (as can be seen from the article text); it was changed in error. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:TIES. I believe the RM should be reasonable since India use their own spelling that are makes their version of English a bit different from U.S. one, for example colour/color, programme/program, centre/center, realise/realize, etc. Australian, British, Canadians and New Zealand also use the similar spelling conventions as India, although in both Canada and Australia program is preferred spelling (as well as realize in Canada itself), so i don't think this will make issue here. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Given half the article is about it's use in India MOS:TIES definitely applies here—blindlynx (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Just mentioning, this proposed move would make "Saffron" one of very few (less than 10) colors to have "(colour)" in the page title and not "(color)" (used by over a hundred other color pages). Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral, but I think the participants of the previous discussion should be pinged to have a chance to share their viewpoints: @AusLondonder, Anthony Appleyard, Mark viking, Dharmadhyaksha, In ictu oculi, Calidum, Vin09, Vanamonde93, Pincrete, and SMcCandlish: Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR – This doesn't meet the threshold for 'strong ties'. 'Strong ties' means 'strong ties' to one place as compared to any other place. Saffron (the colour) is used right across the world, and its origin is not clear. A colour that is used everywhere hardly qualifies as having 'strong ties' to one specific country. Secondly, TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES make clear that we should not change the variety of English just for the sake of it; this change would not benefit the reader in any way, and the article seems to have been at this title for a long time. Therefore, I am opposed to the proposed change. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR. I concur with the above comment that this does not rise to the level of strong ties to justify a move from the longstanding title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose the link(s) to India or to UK English do not rise to the level of "strong cultural ties" AFAI can see. The reasons for such a policy seem twofold, firstly because it would be fairly insulting to refer to Pearl Harbour, the Kennedy Centre or conversely to use US spelling for UK books, films or other created works/cultural elements. There is a secondary logic, which is that probably UK readers are more likely to be researching lesser-known UK subjects, and therefore using 'local' spelling fulfils a practical, as well as 'courtesy' function. Neither of these seem to apply, the word 'saffron' is Arabic and both the word and the colour are fairly universal now. Just about every country on earth could claim a link to the dominant colours of its national flag. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:TIES. evidently linked to India. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly sure if the connection with India is strong enough here given the colour is used worldwide but I'm not sure given such moves are generally discouraged by RETAIN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pincrete. I could see an argument for moving Indian red (color), since it's named after India, or Gamboge (color) (if it existed), since the pigment originates from South Asia, and something like Oxford Blue (colour) clearly deserves to be at the "colour" spelling because it was created by and named after a British entity. However, the color and the name saffron don't originate in India and isn't uniquely associated with an Indian entity. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. India has no stronger ties to the color saffron than Ireland or Saudi Arabia have to the color green. -- Calidum 02:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Calidum. Colours are natural phenomena and are not "tied" to countries. JIP | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per others.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't think the ties are strong enough since the colour its self has little to do with the country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Saffron in Hinduism into Saffron (color)

[edit]

The Religion and Political uses section seem promising destinations for the merge -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saffron_(color)&oldid=1194919213"