Template talk:Young British Artists/Archive 1

Template colours

I admit the red is, erm, daring in wiki terms, and maybe something else would be more restful on the eyes. However, the YBAs are known for being brash, so it's not out of keeping. It adds a bit of zing to the pages, and it's only a small bar of red — a colour much associated with Britain through London buses, phone kiosks and military uniforms. I find the proposed alternative is somewhat insipid, perhaps appropriate for the Afrika Korps or somesuch, but not in keeping with the subject in this case. I have instituted a more subdued shade of red. I will see if I can draw in some more interested editors. Tyrenius 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some colour options for comment

Please note the background on some of the suggestions below is a subtle silver colour.

I think the choice of colour should reflect the subject. For example, Template:Main Nuremberg defendants was pink,[1] which is quite inappropriate. I changed it to a subdued blue. Template:Vincent van Gogh is a strong blue with orange, chosen because of the bright complementary colours used by Van Gogh, in particular those colours (see also Template talk:Vincent van Gogh).

Tyrenius 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red [2]

Young British Artists
Artists: Young British Artists \| Steven Adamson \| Fiona Banner \| Christine Borland \| Angela Bulloch \| Simon Callery \| Jake and Dinos Chapman \| Mat Collishaw \| Ian Davenport \| Tacita Dean \| Tracey Emin \|

1st choice. Appropriate for the subject. Adds zing to the page. Very distinctive. Wiki doesn't have to be subdued throughout. It only occurs on strongly-YBA related pages. Tyrenius 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rd choice. I think I understand the colour usage here but I'm finding it a bit too harsh in a practical sense. Freshacconci 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1st, as Tyrenius says Johnbod 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "Young British Artists" from blue to white, which is a lot easier to look at. I can't work out how to change "hide" to white. Tyrenius 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1st choice. I think the red is evocative of paint, which to me, is evocative of art. Bus stop 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buff [3]

Young British Artists
Artists: Young British Artists \| Steven Adamson \| Fiona Banner \| Christine Borland \| Angela Bulloch \| Simon Callery \| Jake and Dinos Chapman \| Mat Collishaw \| Ian Davenport \| Tacita Dean \| Tracey Emin \|

Insipid. An embarrassment. (sorry!) Makes it look as though wiki has no understanding of the subject. Tyrenius 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that bad. Maybe not for the YBAs, but maybe a watercolour collective. It says: Very tasteful. Won't change history. Freshacconci 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps wiki should not have an understanding of the subject. As long as wiki does not take a stance of active opposition to the subject, I see nothing wrong in wiki not understanding the subject. Bus stop 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think wiki is meant to understand the subject to be authoritative on it as an encyclopedia. Tyrenius 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite dreadful. Hardly visible. Yeuch. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon [4]

Young British Artists
Artists: Young British Artists \| Steven Adamson \| Fiona Banner \| Christine Borland \| Angela Bulloch \| Simon Callery \| Jake and Dinos Chapman \| Mat Collishaw \| Ian Davenport \| Tacita Dean \| Tracey Emin \|

~~3rd~~ 2nd choice with white text. Tyrenius 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1st choice (see red above). Freshacconci 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "Young British Artists" to white. Better? Tyrenius 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Salmon [5]

Young British Artists
Artists: Young British Artists \| Steven Adamson \| Fiona Banner \| Christine Borland \| Angela Bulloch \| Simon Callery \| Jake and Dinos Chapman \| Mat Collishaw \| Ian Davenport \| Tacita Dean \| Tracey Emin \|

~~2nd~~ 3rd choice. Refreshing, a bit of lift. Tyrenius 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd(ish) choice. Like a watered-down salmon. (The salmon above is smoked; this one is mousse).

Richer red, greener grey

Young British Artists
Artists: Young British Artists \| Steven Adamson \| Fiona Banner \| Christine Borland \| Angela Bulloch \| Simon Callery \| Jake and Dinos Chapman \| Mat Collishaw \| Ian Davenport \| Tacita Dean \| Tracey Emin \|

This is based on the 'Red' scheme, but I've chosen colours that in my opinion make the contents more legible. Thoughts? [talk to the] HAM 10:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd(ish) choice. Almost too tasteful. Freshacconci 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice Johnbod 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice combination, but I don't feel it's right for the subject. The colours suggest something "military". The main text is less legible than on light grey background. I also think it would dominate the page, as opposed to just a bar of strong colour, which is more like marking a division in the page. Tyrenius 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice. Could be first choice. I think this is the classiest. It is very tasteful, in my opinion. It exudes professionalism, the opposite of a Mickey Mouse operation. It seems like the colors that would be chosen by a progressive liberal democracy for Signage that might guide the public around an educational, historical, or other area. Bus stop 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palette

You can suggest other colour choices above. See choice of colours at Web colors #X11 color names. Hex Code is the ref needed. Tyrenius 04:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we judging colors?

We are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Aren't we expressing ourselves by color choices? I think Wikipedia should have one color scheme throughout. Are there sources that we can cite for the color choices we've made? Bus stop 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, and one that needs consideration. I've had a look into this. There is a default colour on Wikipedia:NavFrame, as used in Template:Broadway theatres for example. The only caution about changing this is that there shouldn't be clashes if a number of different templates appear on the same page. However, this default colour is often modified and in the following examples seems to have been done so in a way that editors consider is appropriate to the subject matter: Template:Vincent van Gogh, Template:Death (band), Template:Star Wars, Template:Green Parties.

There are only two art infobox templates (this and Van Gogh), but I've sampled some author infobox templates. The default is used in ones such as Template:Chekhov. Others have modified this, e.g. Template:Amelia Peabody, Template:Gabriel García Márquez, Template:HitchhikerBooks, Template:Beckett, Template:George Bernard Shaw, Template:Tennesseew, Template:Plays by Oscar Wilde. Again there would seem to be an intention to match colour with subject.

I think one colour throughout the whole of wiki would be unnecessarily restrictive and probably monotonous, but the best place to discuss that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates.

In the meantime, it seems we have options. I exercised this to place the red colour on the template initially. We are now discussing that because it was challenged (on optical grounds). I agree we should operate from NPOV, which I take in this usage to be a determination of the nature of the content, and if there is a colour that has associations with that subject which makes it appropriate.

In the case of Young British Artists, I made obvious associations with Britishness — red is on buses, phone boxes and uniforms. The brightness also seemed in keeping with the brash nature of the artists. The article isn't referenced properly, so here are some refs for that, just in case anyone is in doubt about their brashness:

"brash, rude, witty and irreverent",[6]

"high-profile, brash and controversial",[7]

"brash group of young British artists"[8]

I think the reader should find colours on the page which they do not find inappropriate to the content.

Some useful links:

Tyrenius 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On rethinking this, I would have to agree with your statement that "one colour throughout the whole of wiki would be unnecessarily restrictive." But I have my doubts about there being color schemes appropriate to subject matter. It seems harmless enough, but highly subjective. Sure, several editors getting together will arrive at a generally agreed upon color scheme. And doing so is fun. Actually, what I think would be fun, would be if Wikipedia had software that randomly generated color schemes for articles -- differently every time the page was accessed. That way a reader could even reload a page if the color scheme didn't agree with them. Bus stop 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to red

As the strongest opinion at the moment is for red, I've changed the template back to that, with white lettering instead of the original blue to make it easier on the eye. I don't regard the debate as closed and this choice as finalised, but it gives a chance to live with the red and see if it is still regarded as OK or not. Further comments can be added to the debate above. Tyrenius 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've settled on is fine. The version I made (now titled buff) was a quick change I put through unilaterally that only pointed out the original was unreadable. I'm glad it generated discussion, and I agree that the beige color scheme was highly inaccurate in regard to the material it templates for. I think that the template must be reflective of the topic at hand, because while Wikipedia isn't a public art project, it should maintain an aspect of artistry. There's a reason the Wikipedia doesn't appear in ASCII. W e s!  ^T _c 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum: see the template colours at the bottom of Michael Jordan - the same as the ones originally on this template! Tyrenius 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]