Talk:Orange (colour)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Color WikiProject, a project that provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
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.

Several proposals have been made concerning this page. Before making a new one, please review these discussions.

  • Move: "Orange (color)" → "Orange (colour)", March 2004: Accepted.
  • Move: "Orange (colour)" → "Orange (color)", June 2005: Opposed.
  • Move: "Orange (colour)" → "Orange (color)", October 2005: Opposed.
  • Move: "Orange (colour)" → "Orange (color)", April 2006: Opposed.
  • Move: "Orange (colour)" → "Orange", April 2006: Opposed.
  • Move: "Orange (colour)" → "Orange_(color)", November 2007. US English spelling of "color": Opposed
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 2004-2005
Archive 2 2006


Contents

[edit] Questions and Answers

Q: - Is Orange the brightest colour visible to the naked eye?

I don't understand the question. What are you intending to fix (keep constant) when comparing brightnesses? Dicklyon 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the question might be referring to the color to which the human eye is most sensitive. The answer to this is actually "bright" or "neon green" at wave length of 555nm (on the yellow side of green), with the corollary that red and violet (at 380nm and 760nm) invoke the least retinal response in most humans. This response shifts to the blue side (~507nm) in dimly lit situations because of the transition from cone to rod receptors. These numbers are averages and differ slightly from person to person, and are completely different for different animals. Street signs are often in orange because of the durability of orange dies, as well as the strong contrast shown by orange against black. See [Sensitivity of the human eye at giangrandi.ch]. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The etymology section makes little sense. If the Indo-European word naranj is what the orange fruit derives from, then how possible can the next sentence say "Before this was introduced to the English-speaking world" and talk about Old English? Old English is more recent than Indo-European and seems to be an artifact from when the word origin was listed as Arabic. Artrenadys 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer monitors

Should there be mention of the difficulty monitors (or other display units) have with displaying orange correctly? Oranges displayed are rarely fully representative of how the colour will print. Various shades of orange seem dull/brownish on most screens I've used. In fact, on some recent Apple Macintosh monitors, I've seen red displayed as indistinguishable from orange. Mr.bonus 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Something of great concern with printing in particular is that subtractive coloring must be used to achieve any given co lor. Since the CMYK color system is so unreliable relative to a monitor's RGB color system, it is unsurprising if orange does not display properly relative to a print version. Different lighting conditions for the user also affect perception of color: under some light conditions certain colors may experience drift because of quirks in human perception. It isn't necessarily the monitor: orange is simply a color which does not fare well under careful scrutiny. Nihiltres 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per WP:NAME, shouldn't this page be moved to "Orange (color)", since the majority of English speakers do not use the British spelling?  ~Steptrip 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Basically, if an article has a strong link to parts of the world that use British spelling, we use British spelling. The same is true for American spelling in articles relating more strongly to the U.S. If neither applies (as is the case here) then we just stick with however the article started and we strive to be consistent within the article. Johntex\talk 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The title being spelled differently than the spelling used in the article is extremely amateurish. If Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously, then it must be more professional than the amateurism shown by the inconsistant spelling of this article. It has nothing to do with British vs. American; it is instead an issue of internal article consistancy. Either spelling is okay, but it should be one or the other. VMS Mosaic 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That inconsistency issue has been corrected, and this article has had proposals to be moved multiple times, all of which (that I know of) failed. In addition, I doubt that 'the majority of English speakers do not use the British spelling" - or that it would be NPOV to Americanize all spelling, for that matter. "Colour" it should remain. Nihiltres 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I said "...the majority of English speakers do not use the British spelling" because the majority of English speakers are not under the jurisdiction of British authority.  ~Steptrip 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that English is the official language in at least 71 countries, mostly as a legacy of the British Empire, and is spoken as a lingua-franca in very many others, it can be conclusively stated that the majority of English speakers do not live under the jurisdiction of the USA either. See English language. Jooler 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, see WP:ENGVAR, part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nihiltres 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for instigating this whole thing, I need to look up all of the obscure policies of the English Wikipedia, of which everyone seems to be extremely fond :-).  ~Steptrip 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Every other color page I have seen is color. This one should be changed to match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.195 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color-wheel orange

Whose idea is it that the "colour wheel" orange should be exactly half way between red and yellow in a gamma=2.2 RGB space? That's what the combined statement and code #FF7F00 imply. Why not take the green primary to half intensity instead of half code value? Is there any source for this concept at all? It certainly doesn't agree with the web-color definition of orange. Dicklyon 21:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I couldn't find any color theory basis for the value other than midway in RGB and HSL, so I explained that. Dicklyon 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Shouldn't the name of this article be Orange (color), not Orange (colour)? If you go to the Colour article, it in turn redirects to Color.--Tempest115 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I just feel that's weird that it's spelled "colour" here but that the article is spelled "color"--Tempest115 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Spelling, and the notice at the top of this talk page. It's colour, and staying that way. --saxsux 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] A Short Lament

I've been reverting the inevitable spelling "corrections" for a while now on this article and have reached a few conclusions on the folks who compulsively change "colour" to "color." I should first note that I'm from West Virginia, where there ain't no "u" in color, nor in rumor, nor humor. Well, at least not in color.

The correctors fall into three tribes:

  • Proud spelling chauvinists who are convinced of the inherent superiority of their variety of English.
  • People who believe that Wikipedia is an American project, and who are convinced that all spelling must therefore reflect American practice, WP:ENGVAR be damned.
  • Saddest of all are the people who really don't know that there are other ways to spell colo(u)r.

I feel better now.

Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I know you'll all hate me for doing this, but don't worry; I've read the previous discussions as well as the manual of style. I do not have a bias against any spelling variety. I was simply wondering: Why, exactly, is this not standardised yet? I understand Wikipedia has the 'first come first serve' rule, which we all know is the most important rule on Wikipedia, but this is beginning to 'grind my gears', so to speak. The manual of style "is a style guide that aims to make the encyclopedia easier to read". It helps to "promote professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles".

Wikipedia has had tons of attention in the media, some good, some bad, but nevertheless, many, many people use it, as seen by traffic ratings and etc. These policies keep Wikipedia together, and allow us to use this great resource to improve our lives. Most of these policies apply to the articles themselves but not to Wikipedia as a whole, which is good. For example, the Notability guidelines determine whether or not an article is notable for inclusion, but not to the content of the article. I don't always agree with that, but that's what Attribution is for.

Now, on to the point many many people have tried to make and all have failed for reasons that go over my head: The category and Wikiproject use "color". Most likely all, if not the vast majority, of the articles in that category use "color". So why does this one not?

Once again, this is not a bias against a particular form of spelling. If they all used "colour", it would not bother me. It is the inconsistency that not only bothers me, but damages Wikipedia as a whole. Are we to blindly accept a policy in a situation such that it would defy logic? I'm sure many of you agree with me but are not willing to say anything since your statements, and most likely mine, may be ignored.

So, is there a snowballs's chance in hell of this ever happening? If not, would it be possible to attempt to reach a consensus to actually alter the rules such that consistency within articles applies without them (as in, inter-article)? All I'd like to know is if it is possible. I'm not going to make any changes because what I love about Wikipedia is that it is a democracy. Joking aside, I know a vote is silly, but would a healthy discussion to reach consensus be possible either here or with the MOS? I am just wondering, as I have OCD and it's killing me.

Anonymous 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't hate you. In fact, I want you to sign up for a username and an account, because we need more people like you here, who are willing to write five paragraphs of thoughtful comment on matters of style after researching the matter thoroughly. As for OCD, what other sort of person wants to spend hours/days/weeks/years researching and writing an online encyclopedia? You're in good company.
As for the topic at hand - it bothers me too. I've come to terms with it, though, and sort of like it as an intriguing anomaly, maybe one that lures productive editors into Wikipedia's web. It's a little insight into the history of Wikipedia. The original editor, who appears to be no longer active, may have been English/Australian/South African, hence the way it's spelled/spelt. WP:ENGVAR accomplishes several useful things. It avoids alienating whole nationalities, and it keeps the focus on creating an encylop(a)edia. We'd need spelling arbitration, enforcement, a Nominations for Spelling Style Changes process, long, pointless edit wars and general pain and frustration, all over a U. This very article, in fact, appears in WP:LAME, which summarizes the general feeling that national spelling changes are just distracting and unproductive.
Embrace your unease. Don't straighten the pictures in your friend's house. Pat the strange but friendly dog. Come and contribute to an encyclopedia. Spell any way you like it if you start the article.
Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If they were all colour, I would be fine. But they should all be the same. Atropos 09:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Colour

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Why is it spelled colour but at the top of this page is says "color wikiproject"? Monobi 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because orange, or colors in general, are not associated with any specific version of English, we go with the version that was initially created. Which, in this case, had color spelled with a u. The WikiProject started with the American variant of color I would imagine. i said 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Search "orange" and you will find orange(color) which sadly, redirects here. We need uniformity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.195 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Requested move

I'm closing this as no consensus. Interested parties can of course carry on debating the issue, and at a time when a consensus is agreed to move, list again at Wikipedia:Requested moves. At this moment in time I see no value in maintaining the listing, as it would likely be permanently listed, since once it moves, a request to move it back would be made. It might be better to focus energies elsewhere. This is a fractious issue, and has been as long as I can remember. Hiding T 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orange (colour) → Orange_(color) — English American spelling of "color" —Fraggy4 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


  • Support This page should be consistent with all of the other color pages. They all use the English spelling of color, and Wikipedia is all about consistency. Fraggy4 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an international project; we recognize the variations within the users of the English language. My fellow Americans should learn to deal with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, color is the better spelling, it would also be consistent with color. (I'm British, in case you were wondering.) - MTC (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename everything to couleur :) 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Instead preserve the beautiful many-coloured diversity of English Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Fraggy, remaining consistant with other similar articles. TJ Spyke 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a moratorium on this. This is the sixth request, and I doubt it will be any different. We have WP:ENGVAR for a reason. There is no justified arguments for having a certain variation of English on a page that is not a related to the topic (e.g. British spelling on the article England). As such, there is a convention that whichever is the original variant used, we stick with it, and do not change it. While personally I would prefer it to be Americanized, I do not believe there is enough reason to warrant a disregard of the aforementioned convention. I (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the article WAS originally spelled color (according to the move log at the top). TJ Spyke 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And it was probably moved because the first few revisions of the page used colour. There are no move logs for this page, do the logs not go back that far? I (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Google stats are often quoted to make some point, but are rarely useful. This is a case in point. Every single webpage designer in the world is FORCED to use the <font color> tag even if they're French, German or whatever <font colour> (that's supposed to be in green) doesn't work. How many pages do you think there are documenting html codes? Jooler 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does that warrant not following the conventions? I (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What specifically about WP:ENGVAR are you invoking? I am stating that American English is more widely spoken and since there is no room for a common ground, the American English should take precedence by force of numbers. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In my estimation, it has been colour the majority of the time, and therefore should remain that way. I (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:ENGVAR, WP:LAME, and six previous discussions. --DeLarge (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. If you look at the first version of the article it starts out as The color orange. If you take the time machine back here it is clear that color was the correct usage. And for the record what exactly is English? That is ambiguous in terms of a language. It is American English, Australian English, British English or Canadian English or one of probably a few more variations? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that in that diff, color without a u is used once, while with a u it is used three times? And in the original draft of the article, both versions were used? And with a u has been the predominant style for most of the article's history? I (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the 'Nth' time for same reasons. Jooler (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Reasons include 1) user ease, 2) clarity, 3) consistency with other articles, 4) the fact that it was originally written color on Wikipedia, and 5) the higher numbers of users who use the color spelling. The name of an Encyclopedic entry it not the forum for multiculturalism. Were this article specific to a country speaking the Queen's English, it would be another matter. Moving this article will do no injustice to those who use non-American English, nor will it in some way ill-legitimize or diminish the diversity of the language. Lack of any disadvantage and existence of many advantages leads me to support this move. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
1) How does it improve user ease? 2) Why is it more clear that way. 3) The only legitimate argument IMO 4 )Both spellings were used in the original page, and it has been with a U for the majority of its existence. 5) Numbers do not have bearing in WP:ENGVAR; only ties to certian forms and original version do. I (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't invoke ENGVAR. Renaming this article will improve user ease as it will reduce confusion for a great number of people. Wikipedia is used by a great number of children who have internet access. As was noted above, a far greater number of American English speaking people write on the internet than do speakers of other forms of English. From this it is reasonable to infer that a greater number of American English speaking children use the internet. As the young are more easily confused than most, I want to minimize confusion as much as possible for these children. This change will also lead to a more clear article name for everyone else looking for information about this color, because of greater numbers and because of conformity (this is exemplified by the repeated questions above about the name). This speaks to both my reasons 1 and 2, although they are separate. What is most compelling, however, is that there are only advantages of moving it, and no material advantages of leaving it as it is. I should add that "get used to it," as seems to be stated in opposition, is not a reason. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a look at this guide -- After review of WP:ENGVAR, consistency is a preference inferred from the section on Consistency within articles. Consistency will be achieved both within a group of tightly knit articles and within the WikiProject Color; and so, the spirit and reason for WP:ENGVAR promotes this change. I don't really want to get into lawyerism, but according to proposal title box above, this page was originally "Orange (color)." because of this, WP:ENGVAR specifically promotes this move. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. User:Nslsmith has engaged in votestacking with posts to four other users: User:Animum, User:Tempest115, User:Monobi, and User:Atropos. Three of those users have since commented here. He has also engaged in similar behaviour on another move request. The user has been warned of this behaviour. --DeLarge 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. DeLarge's claim of vote stacking is completely unfounded, I did not inform any editors who have ever voted on this topic. I have only informed other editors which have asked questions about why this article has the name it does currently. There are no repeat votes, no repeat debate actions; this behavior does not reflect vote stacking. I have been excluded from other debated by DeLarge in the past, possibly because of my differing opinion. I work to include anyone who is interested. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. If colour were in the majority and this was Orange (color) I would support changing it to colour too. There has been no objection to this move that is based on what actually makes sense; instead all opposition is focused on the wording of engvar (a policy whose purpose is simply to stop edit wars). It is most logical that we ignore all rules and do what makes sense, making our encyclopedia as consistent as possible. Atropos (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've just reread WP:ENGVAR and I can't see any mention of its purpose being simply to stop edit wars. I think otherwise; It's an important part of what English Wikipedia is. It's not just British speakers who are catered for by this guideline, but all non-US varieties. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. 164.116.241.246 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose again. This particular case is what WP:ENGVAR was drafted for. Learn to leave things alone, and accept that the English-speaking world is "large, and contains multitudes". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that isn't neccesarily true. There is no discussion in March of 2004, so I don't know what it's referring to. In addition, this comment says the article was originally titled with a u. There are no logs for this page being moved, although that could be because of how far the logs go back. I (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, reluctantly. Ordinarily, I would oppose citing retention of original spelling, but seeing as how Red, Yellow, Green, Purple, Brown, Black, and White all use color, perhaps a change is in order. Grey uses the British spelling of the tint/shade/lack of hue, but uses the word "color" throughout. Further, the main article is spelled Color, not Colour (which redirects to the first), and the relevant WikiProject is WikiProject Color, not WikiProject Colour. For the sake of consistency, change it back to color, and change the spelling in Blue to match with the overwhelming consensus among all of the other related articles. Horologium (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
Every other page concerning colors uses the English spelling. This article should not be exempted from the current layout of colors on Wikipedia. Fraggy4 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Colour" is the English spelling. You want to replace the English spelling with the American spelling. Not every Wikipedian is an American; we better get used to it.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that an earlier iteration of this topic has a hallowed place at WP:LAME, and maintain your sense of humo(u)r accordingly. Also, note the six previous discussions, tallied at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google

The mention in the survey above of Google invites comment...this is IMO the best example I've yet seen where we can guarantee that the Google results will be quite worthless however the Google search is devised. WP:NC talks of the greatest number of English speakers (the exact wording of this has been the subject of quite recent discussion, but that's today's version!). That's not the greatest number of English website authors, it's the greatest number of English speakers. There's no reason to expect this to correlate to the Google results, and there are many reasons to think it won't. Andrewa (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some editors keep making the same false claim, that Americans are the majority of English speakers. This simply isn't so. Between the English and their present and former subjects, the clear majority of the world's English speakers are using a more-or-less English variety of the English language. Andrewa's comments above address the nonsensical assertion that Google results constitute reality. All they reflect is what's put online by those privileged enough to put their writings online. This group, of course, is disproportionately composed of white male Americans of the middle and upper classes. That doesn't mean that we white male Americans are a majority of anything, including Americans. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Google stats are often quoted, but rarely useful. This is a case in point. Every single webpage designer in the world is FORCED to use the <font color> tag even if they're French, German or whatever <font colour> (that's supposed to be in green) doesn't work. How many pages do you think there are documenting html codes? Jooler 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children

From the survey above:

Wikipedia is used by a great number of children who have internet access. As was noted above, a far greater number of American English speaking people write on the internet than do speakers of other forms of English. From this it is reasonable to infer that a greater number of American English speaking children use the internet.

Perhaps, (and I did say perhaps) but even if this were true I don't think it's valid to go from there to saying that English Wikipedia should be US-centric. For one thing, Internet access is growing and will continue to grow in other parts of the world, especially among children, see for example OLPC. For another, realising that speaking English differently does not make a person wrong or inferior is an important part of any English-speaking child's upbringing. How old are these children? If they're accessing Wikipedia in a manner where there's no supervision sufficient to resolve this confusion and make it instead a blessing, should they be referred instead to Simple English Wikipedia... which just calls this particular topic orange. Andrewa 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, however, consistency is least confusing for everyone. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not make everything British spelling then? I (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Because everything except this and Blue uses American English, would be my response. Why change eight articles when changing only two will accomplish the same standardization? Horologium (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Had these articles all started off with British spelling, or were this the only of the colors not spelled with a British Spelling, I'd support that. Neither spelling is wrong, but one spelling is more consistent than another in this context. In other contexts, it makes more sense to stick with British spelling. Here, it is easier and better to fix one title instead of many. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] British English tag

Given that this move has failed for the 6th or 7th time. I've going to slap a British English tag on the page, and that should be the end of it. Jooler (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A British English tag is inappropriate for this page as it is not written in British English, nor does it relate specifically to a British topic. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "orange" does not specifically relate to British English. The fact that "colour" is used in the title and in the article does not mean that the article relates to British English. — Wenli (reply here) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The tag is appropriate. It says that the article is written using British spelling. Whether or not it is related to a British topic is irrelevant in terms of the template. I (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The tag is there to inform users that the spellings used in the article should not be changed willy nilly. It is an information tag. Jooler (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)