Talk:Olive (colour)

Is this page necessary
How do we know that this color's name is the same as the DWU? I mean to say, is this color actually mentioned by name in the cited sources? If not, then shouldn't this page be deleted? Shambala108 ☎  23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. There is ample precedent that for "common items", we don't necessarily need a DWU source for the name, so long as they clearly appear on-screen. For example, if the Doctor is seen wearing a hat, we don't need to have a specific source for the word "hat". By the same token, I don't think we need a source for the word green to be able to write about the colour. (Although we'd need a tag.)


 * That being said, the precedent also goes that we don't deal in specifics. Anyone can see that a given object is a tank, and that the Eighth Doctor's coat is green — but specific types of tank are not things that the average viewer is expected to know, so we don't push the conjecture that far. Is "olive" a sufficiently well-known colour? That is the question.


 * I agree these pages are a bit dubious — but I don't think (if you'll forgive the colour pun) that the situation is black-and-white. It's probably something we should have a thread about, once we have Forums again. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A lot of these pages have been created without their full names Sky (colour) was created and correctly changed to Sky blue, and we currently have Bottle (colour) when the actual name is Bottle green. RadMatter ☎  23:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "bottle" is always an adjective of "green"? That being said, while this is true of these two particular pages, which may need to just be merged into Blue and Green respectively, it's certainly not true of Burgundy (colour) or Bronze (colour). So we can't dodge the issue that way. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Didn't we have color pages before, like a month or two ago, and someone deleted them because it was just one IP user adding to them as a pet project and it was really tenuous? Like, exact same situation. Not saying that's precedent, but as a point of information. Najawin ☎  23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, I must have missed that. But yeah, if there weren't any discussions then it doesn't really constitute precedent one way or the other. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)