Talk:Grey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Color WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
 |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
Contents |
[edit] CMYK coordinates of gray
It says that the grayscale colors are 0 0 0 X where X is any number from 0 to 255, and that in theory it can also be X X X 0. But how about X X X X?? 66.245.22.143 17:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Should also work...
[edit] Yellow and Blue
Yellow and blue make green not gray, there is a major flaw here.--64.228.196.98 01:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To whoever wrote that, first, it is necessary to sign Wikipedia articles, and second, that is thinking based on RYB rather than the more modern RGB/CMY color theory. Georgia guy 01:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that, kinda new at this, and you are certainly right, however I believe that that should be mentioned in the article to stop idiots like me from deleting it.--64.228.196.98 01:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page move
[edit] Grey (colour) → Gray
Several days ago, this article was moved from American spellings to Canadian spellings in both a page move (Gray (color) to Grey (colour) and the text in the article. However, I'm pretty sure that this is the meaning of the word gray that people normally think of when they think of this word, and so I say that this article can be moved to Gray. Note that other articles the dis-ambiguation page links to will not change their titles, and the dis-ambiguation page itself can be named Gray (disambiguation). Georgia guy 02:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I did some more homework here. The page started with American spelling in July 2004. It continued with American spelling until last week when User:Cennet changed all the spelling to British, and moved the page (title) to British spelling (when you look at the history you see the new title, even when looking at older edits.) This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling which states;
- If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.(Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)
- and
- If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.
- This article was incorrectly changed from American to British spelling. And the user who did it has only six edits, all to do with the page move. Duk 20:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Grey is not an exclusively Canadian spelling, and while largely a British usage, it was the original spelling, and Gray is just an American variant. While UK-influenced English predominantly uses Grey, American usage is roughly split between both Gray and Grey. As an aside, the Dictionary Society of North America recently released reports on the growing usage and increased popularity of British English spellings in the United States...blaming the phenomenon in part for the large number of UK-expatriate editors who take publishing jobs in the United States and influence the language in the editing and production. Etymologically, it comes from the Middle English grei and further back from the Old English graeg. The disambiguation at Gray is fine as it is, and given the variety of topics covered (people, physics, color) all the more necessary. LASTLY, we have a policy around here about not bickering between American English and British English usage, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which establishes the policy stating American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa and states that alternate spellings may require redirects...which is done appropriately here. —ExplorerCDT 06:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The question of word origins isn't really relevant here. Both spellings are valid in American English (personally, I don't think I use one spelling consistantly, nor do I really notice which I'm using). It probably doesn't help that although 'grey' may be closer to the british roots, I know a bit of German and 'gray' is close to 'grau'. Both usages are common in the States, and while our policy is not to make a fuss about these things, we're left with the question of whether, when people break that agreement and move stuff around, we should undo their efforts as a deterrent against future things of that kind. I'm not sure if we should in this case or not. In any case, as, if I'm any example to go by, for this word I don't think any speaker of English would find 'grey' wrong (Americans regularly see both and many like me don't even notice), and many non-American speakers of English would find 'gray' wrong, perhaps it's best to leave it at 'Grey'. I don't feel strongly enough about it to actually vote. --Improv 14:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This page should probably either be moved back to Gray (color)] or all the internal links to Gray (color) should be changed to Grey (colour). Moving it to a third place would solve nothing and would also create secondary redirects which would, I believe, fail. I have some sympathy with the placing of the article at Gray but not if the redirects aren't fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. I concur with ExplorerCDT. *Christiaan 18:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Echo above statements. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object As per above, jguk 19:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Confused Looking at the history, the article seems to have been started with American spelling and continued that way until last week [1]. Is this right? If so, then the policy is clear; articles should be standardized to the spelling they started in. When did the page move from American to British spelling happen?Duk 19:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)- The answer can be found by clicking on Gray (color), removing the re-direct by clicking on the link, and then clicking on "history", and it will have just one edit labelled "Move to Grey (colour)". Georgia guy 19:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Grey is accepted in the US. Gray is not accepted elsewhere where US English is not used. zoney ♣ talk 20:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Grey
Restore to original spellingThe page started as American spelling, stayed that way for eight months and was changed to British spelling in violation of policy. The user who made this changed had no previous edits, and never edited another page. This makes me suspect that he knew it was wrong when he did it (by checking out a new user name just for this purpose). Duk 20:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- OK, I just can't swallow a blatent policy violation, so I'm going to pretend it didn't happen. Grey is the better spelling for reasons listed above. Changing my vote to keep Grey.
- Object The Manual of Style also says, "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect." 'Grey' is correct in British English and in U.S. English; 'Gray' is correct only in U.S. English, so the former should be preferred. If the user accidentally did the right thing, thinking he was being bold and underhand, you're still at liberty to object to the use of a sockpuppet by way of an RfC... Alai 21:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. "Grey" is occasionally seen in U.S. usage but "gray" is far more common. The sporadic occurrences of "grey" give no reason to depart from our policy of honoring the original spelling. True, we don't want to bicker about spelling, but if we let the unilateral undiscussed anti-policy probable sockpuppet move stand, the effect will be to generate more bickering about spelling. JamesMLane 21:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Sporadic"? DSNA says the usage is roughly 50-50 across the United States, and that at least 20% of the country favours "-our" endings over "-or" as in colour, honour, etc. Though I disagree with the anon's move, it is in line with Wikipedia's common use naming convention.—ExplorerCDT 22:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a professional lexicographer, but I find both the DSNA assertions astounding. Were they perhaps including Canada? I just did my own half-baked research by searching the archives of the New York Times for each term. "Gray" returned 19,655 articles, while "grey" returned only 2,270. Obviously, both totals will be distorted by people named Gray or Grey and by other proper nouns, but that cuts both ways -- the first hit for "grey" is an article about homelessness that mentions a Zane Grey western. Similarly, "honor" gets 20,989 and "honour" only 119; "color" is 24,617 and "colour" is 93. JamesMLane 23:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the DSNA is. But a search of the NY Times can only reveal what the NY Times' style guide says about the matter. It will offer no comment whatsoever about how Americans not writing specifically for the NY Times spell the word, jguk 23:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- FYI: DSNA = Dictionary Society of North America. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the Times usage isn't definitive. That's one reason I called my research "half-baked". I thought that going to the Times archive was at least a little better than just conveying my personal opinion -- which is that, even among Americans not writing specifically for the New York Times, "gray" is far more common than "grey" and that "honour" and "colour" are virtually unknown. By the way, the Dictionary Society of North America ([2]) probably merits an article, despite its apparent lapse on this particular subject. JamesMLane 03:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- FYI: DSNA = Dictionary Society of North America. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the DSNA is. But a search of the NY Times can only reveal what the NY Times' style guide says about the matter. It will offer no comment whatsoever about how Americans not writing specifically for the NY Times spell the word, jguk 23:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a professional lexicographer, but I find both the DSNA assertions astounding. Were they perhaps including Canada? I just did my own half-baked research by searching the archives of the New York Times for each term. "Gray" returned 19,655 articles, while "grey" returned only 2,270. Obviously, both totals will be distorted by people named Gray or Grey and by other proper nouns, but that cuts both ways -- the first hit for "grey" is an article about homelessness that mentions a Zane Grey western. Similarly, "honor" gets 20,989 and "honour" only 119; "color" is 24,617 and "colour" is 93. JamesMLane 23:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Sporadic"? DSNA says the usage is roughly 50-50 across the United States, and that at least 20% of the country favours "-our" endings over "-or" as in colour, honour, etc. Though I disagree with the anon's move, it is in line with Wikipedia's common use naming convention.—ExplorerCDT 22:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 00:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. We should not encourage the behavior of users like User:Cennet who change all the spellings to "grey" when it was originally at "gray." That, if anything, is clearly out of line with Wikipedia's policies on British/American spellings, about leaving spellings as they originally were when the subject is not specifically British or American. —Lowellian (talk) 02:34, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- The policy says not to change American spellings to British ones (or vice versa). But it doesn't say not to change exclusively American spellings to ones recognised in Britain (etc) and America (see the American Heritage Dictionary, or Merriam-Webster). Indeed, the examples of avoiding 'alternate', etc, rather approves of doing so. The objective, as I understand it, is as great a mutual comprehensibility as possible, not to uphold 'linguistic first strike' at the cost of all else. Alai 02:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On that we can agree. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, we can't. The references to the WP:MOS being policy have recently been removed as a couple of editors believed that as there was no vote to make it policy, it wasn't policy (although personally I believe that it has effectively been accepted as policy by acclamation, but I lost out there). Ergo, there is no policy either way, jguk 13:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On that we can agree. —ExplorerCDT 03:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What leads you to believe that "colour" is acceptable American English? A.D.H. (t&m) 04:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be perfectly in favour of a move to Grey (color), if either a) that question is of my belief, or b) any help. (Again trying to resist the temptation to start a move counter-request...) Alai 05:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- this would be my preference. Duk 13:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be perfectly in favour of a move to Grey (color), if either a) that question is of my belief, or b) any help. (Again trying to resist the temptation to start a move counter-request...) Alai 05:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The policy says not to change American spellings to British ones (or vice versa). But it doesn't say not to change exclusively American spellings to ones recognised in Britain (etc) and America (see the American Heritage Dictionary, or Merriam-Webster). Indeed, the examples of avoiding 'alternate', etc, rather approves of doing so. The objective, as I understand it, is as great a mutual comprehensibility as possible, not to uphold 'linguistic first strike' at the cost of all else. Alai 02:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Cennet was, I think, ill-advised to make the change (and would have been better occupied doing some more useful editing) — but, first, the change appears not to be across U.S./U.K.-English lines ('grey' does seem genuinely to be the much more common spelling world-wide, and even fairly common in the U.S.), and secondly, once it's done why waste further time changing it all again (especially to a third option)? Reverting it as a deterrent would only work if likely future culprits had any idea of what was done in this case — but that seems pretty unlikely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Gray is a surname, Grey is a colour, in the majority of the English speaking world. Kiand 16:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Why is there even a vote when the style guide is clear? Allowing this to stand could encourage more needless language squabbles or worse. Maurreen 17:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've read them and I agree with Maurreen. If your reference is to your point that "future culprits" won't know about this decision, my response is: I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters, in particular the evidence that Cennet is a sockpuppet who knows perfectly well what the rule is? It's not at all impossible that, if this move stands, then "Cennet" will wait a decorous interval to make it look good, and then show up under yet another name and stage another guerrilla attack on the MoS. In addition, even aside from the deterrent effect, I just don't think that rulebreakers should be rewarded by getting their desired outcome as a result of their rulebreaking. JamesMLane 03:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't to that; it was to the fact that the style guide isn't clear on this, as we're not concerned with a simple difference between U.S. and U.K. English; 'grey' is both U.S. and U.K., 'gray' is only U.S. As for rulebreakers not getting what they want — fair enough, but I also don't think that there's much to be gained in cutting your nose off to spite your face. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, what James Lane here says makes a lot of sense. —Lowellian (talk) 11:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I've read them and I agree with Maurreen. If your reference is to your point that "future culprits" won't know about this decision, my response is: I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters, in particular the evidence that Cennet is a sockpuppet who knows perfectly well what the rule is? It's not at all impossible that, if this move stands, then "Cennet" will wait a decorous interval to make it look good, and then show up under yet another name and stage another guerrilla attack on the MoS. In addition, even aside from the deterrent effect, I just don't think that rulebreakers should be rewarded by getting their desired outcome as a result of their rulebreaking. JamesMLane 03:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be snide or anything, but have you read the arguments offered by previous voters? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. — Instantnood 18:43 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Grey is the better spelling, but this article should be at Grey, not Grey (colour). Foobaz·✐ 01:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Move. Neutralitytalk 16:40, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Move. Original move to grey violated policy, and must be undone; it was AE and must stay AE, or we'll wind up in move requests again and again. Besides, Google supports gray for the colour. --A D Monroe III 22:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See above, where various people point out that 'grey' is used in both U.K. and U.S. English, whereas 'gray' is used only in U.S. English — thus it isn't a simple matter of the difference between two variants of English. (And I'd not trust Google to tell me anything of this sort. Dictionaries are more useful and reliable.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support <via edit conflict> BrokenSegue 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I am pursuaded by what James Lane wrote. Jonathunder 03:25, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Voting closed.
[edit] Requested Move: (There and back again...)
Page seems to have moved, though without much in the way of consensus. Would there be any support for a RM for a bona fide move to grey, or to grey (color), on the basis of this being a spelling recognised in all major spellings of English? Alai 06:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
- Support - The spelling grey is acceptable in every single English-speaking country, gray not. That's a fact. In the MoS it says, a neutral word should be chosen if possible and reasonable, which is the case for grey. Therefore, the MoS should be respected and the neutral word 'grey' be chosen.Iwaki 13:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support - if one spelling is universal and one is parochial, we should use the universally-accepted spelling. When confronted with a choice between being sometimes wrong and being never wrong, why choose the sometimes wrong option? Also, the article itself is inconsistent, using both spellings, seemingly at random. I suggest someone change that while we're at it. Stemonitis 11:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support, because grey is used and accepted everywhere, gray not. Why choose a spelling that is only used in the US (but not even exclusively) for an international English wikipedia? Oh, and by the way, grey as a noun only means grey, whereas the noun gray can mean both color and physical unit.
- The page should be moved to Grey and stay there. However the article should (except for grey) remain written in US English. Nobbie 03:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support based primarily on the broader usage of 'grey' over 'gray', as noted in earlier arguments. Courtland 04:10, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Support based on broader usage and lack of conflicting use. James F. (talk) 09:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support agree with above comments. Timrollpickering 09:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support - in line with policy. Warofdreams 12:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:15 Z
- Support. Move to grey. zoney ♣ talk 17:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose moving yet again. Please let it rest. Jonathunder 06:07, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Oppose. 165.161.3.13 15:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Voting closed.
---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---
In the first suggested #Page move started at 02:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) the numbers were 10 to 8 for Grey. (The structure of voting was confusing so edit these numbers if I am still wrong). So I am not sure that the page should have been moved as there was no agreement to do so.
Should this discussion be considered a new one because the last discussion only finished at 03:25, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC). If this is a request for new opinions, perhaps people who supported or opposed in the first discussion should not be eligible to support or oppose this one as it could be seen as double counting as it is doubtful anyone has changed their opinion in a week. The reason for saying this is that otherwise this vote can be resurrected again and again by the loosing side until they get the vote they want. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the first discussion was more complex, and was, at least in part, concerned with whether the previous move was correct, and whether or not it should be undone. This discussion is over the simpler point of whether "gray" should move to "grey", regardless of the editing history. On that basis, this is a different discussion, the results of which (will) deserve attention. I don't care whether it was wrong or not of someone to move it in the past, only whether it would be better to move it now. Stemonitis 11:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's a bit soon. While I made the original comment, I don't think I'd have started another move vote quite so soon myself. On the other hand: it's different for the reasons Stemonitis mentions, and also because it was complicated by "Grey (colour)" being the then page name, which is obviously not a generally acceptable spelling. And as noted above, the first vote didn't have consensus, so really the "losing" side didn't in fact lose at all, as I understand the defined criteria. Perhaps the moving admin was taking into account the "impropriety" of the original move that sparked all this off. If we actually get a rough consensus this time, that can't be a bad thing. Alai 17:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Of course, the first vote showed a majority in favour of leaving the page at Grey (colour), but User:Neutrality chose to jump the gun and move it to his preferred version of Gray, which is a shame as all the above users could have spent their time improving the encyclopaedia rather than re-arguing the page location some more. Kind regards, jguk 18:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. I think it should now remain as Grey - no more voting please! violet/riga (t) 17:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Although I use the -ay spelling, I prefer using the -ey spelling for this page. The -ay spelling is almost exclusive to North America, while the -ey spelling is used worldwide. Since the English Wikipedia has English-speaking people from different areas, the use of a form seen in almost all dialects is favorable in an article that isn't about something having to do with a specific country (that is, unlike the articles on the American Civil War or the Hundred Years' War). --/ɛvɪs/ 07:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Is the picture for gray 50%? It looks quite dark to be perfect gray. 207.224.177.252 21:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] American vs Canadian
The article has a title of "grey", the Canadian spelling, but in the article, it uses the American spelling of color. If the title is "grey", we should use colour inside the article.--Fantrl 14:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the above response, Wikipedians above claim that "gray" is American only and that "grey" is both American and Canadian; see the above Requested moves for details. Georgia guy 14:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Jesus, could you stop fucking calling it "Canadian" spelling? There are other countries in the world, you bloody yanks.
- I think you have just identified the real root of the problem "There are other countries in the world, you bloody yanks" and for that matter quite a few other problems just a tad more serious. ho hum.
- Jesus, could you stop fucking calling it "Canadian" spelling? There are other countries in the world, you bloody yanks.
[edit] English on this article
One of the recent edits of this article is that it should use Commonwealth English; yet the article started in American English. What does anyone say?? Georgia guy 21:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling proposal
Hi there, I notice that in this article there is a lot of activity about spelling that could be better channeled into the subject itself. You may be interested in this proposal to put an end to the problem. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible vandalism
Could someone please inspect the recent edit by 141.43.210.4. That IP is being used for vandalism on many pages & the edit here may be that too. Not knowing the subject I can't offer an opinion. Kcordina 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Surname
What about the Grey surname?
I had a math teacher years ago named "Mr. Gray". He told us that 'Gray' is a surname and is therefore always capitalized, whereas 'grey' is the color, however I don't doubt there are many people with the last name of 'Grey'.
[edit] Gray
I turned Gray into a disambig that mentions Grey first thing. I get the sense this will tick people off, but about half the things at Grey (disambiguation) involved "Gray." I put a link to the "grey" disambig in Gray, but if it's too Americentric and horrible a thing to do I'll understand. I think "grey" is fine for this article though as many in the US spell it that way now too. I dislike that spelling, it's not because I'm pro-US just anti-UK:), but it is basically the common one now.--T. Anthony 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Concensus has decided that "Grey" is the color. There are though many things spelt "gray" that are not related to the color. People, places, etc for example. So I think the "gray" page should stand as a disambig. But shouldn't the "Gray" aticle have its own talk page? As it is now it links to this talk page. In the interests to making the various pages (Grey, Grey (disambig), and Gray) connected I placed disambig type links on the top of them. Naufana : talk 19:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
