Talk:Buff (colour)

message: I'm curious why this should be written in BE. All of the subjects (apart from the White Star Line) are American. Besides that, the source of the name "buff" is clearly American, there aren't Bison in the UK. Also, I can't find another color that uses BE in the article.
Sumergocognito (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few other articles that use the colour spelling. For example Orange (colour). See WP:ENGVAR for the policy on this. PaleAqua (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I've just changed a couple of spellings of the word "color" into "colour" in order to make them consistent with the article title. I understand the guidance on this sort of matter is that, unless the article's topic is specifically British or American, the type of English used should be determined by the article's first usage, however I am now unsure if this is the best approach here, seeing as a few of the article subsections deal specifically with American topics, and it seemed incongruous to have the British spelling there. (Although conversely there is a 'British' subsection, in which the American spelling would be incongruous....). Any suggestions for a neat solution? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about the really old European things, I think I figured they are a bit closer to Portugal and Germany and so on than we are, I left it British spelling or spelled it British myself. When it came to speaking of American things, I went with "color". I can't talk about General Washington wearing a "colour"; it looked wrong. And when talking about the British spellings, of course I went with "colour". Actually, that's just what I tried to do. I may have messed it up, in which case feel free to edit. I wasn't sure what to do sometimes and got confused. The naturally occurring stuff I went with things as they stood or tried to use the traditional, old-fashioned, or British spelling for some reason. Maybe it was consistency with the title that made me go with that. It was titled "Buff (colour)" before I got here. Let's just do it so it looks good, and not foolishly consistent. Oh, and also, I may have just tried to avoid the word at times if it wasn't too awkard. If it is too awkward to avoid the word in some part(s), please be WP:BOLD and edit. Chrisrus (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: British spelling?

message: Buff and Blue were the colors of the American Whig party in the 1800s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.211.55 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And of the British Whig Party. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: American Whig Party

message: I'm surprised that this doesn't have the actual color shown. I mean, its a color. You can see it. Therefore, there should be a picture! ...Erm, how to add one...? 99.89.237.227 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although the top of the infobox does use the buff color that is not readily apparent. I went ahead and added a swath of the color buff beneath the infobox. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks ugly; the color infobox is usually enough. I plan to revert. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The color infobox box isn't that clear about it representing the color. Is there something you could do to clarify that the header is the color? --AerobicFox (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, how does it look?

message: Like most new text, this could probably use some tightening up. In this article, we'd been going for as few words if possible, as it's basically just pictures and captions. So the less verbiage the better if we can combine some of these sentences without losing clarity or remove any extra information not truely necessary. There may be a problem with clarity at the end. I personally don't understand the last part. I hesitate to do much more at the moment. I just fixed one typo in it tonight, ("ws" -> "was").
Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Text talk

message: Bruin become Mediator or Negotiation for Peace.jpg | From the Commons #1
Conversation_across_the_water.jpg| From the Commons #2
The Great Rapprochement.jpg| From the Commons #3
John Bull - World War I recruiting poster.jpeg| From the Commons #4
John Bull earwig.jpg| From the Commons #5
Gillray - John Bull taking a Luncheon.jpg| From the Commons #6
====Gallery Talk====
Pictures two, three,and five might be useful for showing him in buff pants.
In picture four, he seems to be wearing buff boot uppers or boot linings.
It looks like the natural side of the leather is showing in number four.
Number one seems "right out", as Bull might say, if only because he doesn't seem to be wearing buff to my eye.
Number two isn't as buff as five, but five is quite ugly, you'll agree.
Number three is the buffest of all, and very nice to look at, but not very useful because the subject is just as much Uncle Sam as John Bull.
Number six is the one we are using. It, too, might be useful for buff pants, but they are hardly visible and not a very good example of the color, as all pictures in this article are should do.
Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Color pictures of John Bull that we have now

message: Pictures two, three,and five might be useful for showing him in buff pants.
In picture four, he seems to be wearing buff boot uppers or boot linings.
It looks like the natural side of the leather is showing in number four.
Number one seems "right out", as Bull might say, if only because he doesn't seem to be wearing buff to my eye.
Number two isn't as buff as five, but five is quite ugly, you'll agree.
Number three is the buffest of all, and very nice to look at, but not very useful because the subject is just as much Uncle Sam as John Bull.
Number six is the one we are using. It, too, might be useful for buff pants, but they are hardly visible and not a very good example of the color, as all pictures in this article are should do.
Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery Talk

message: =====References talk=====
# "AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion," Metropolitan Museum of Art (2006), exhibition brochure, p. 2. This was a bit difficult to google, as there is also a companion book to the exhibition by the same name. This is a brochure, which I tried twice but could not find. Does anyone have access to it? Chrisrus (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: # "AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion," Metropolitan Museum of Art (2006), exhibition brochure, p. 2. This was a bit difficult to google, as there is also a companion book to the exhibition by the same name. This is a brochure, which I tried twice but could not find. Does anyone have access to it? Chrisrus (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References talk

message: As this article contributes so much information about the role of the color buff in US culture, I've added the US project. It was reverted, but the reasons given were not accurate or legitimate. Please feel free to add UK project if you feel there's enough about the role of this color in UK culture to justify it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you because I felt it was perpetuating the dispute above, by artificially creating a national tie to the topic. Articles are claimed by projects when they are generally regarded as being of interest to project members that may wish to develop them. I didn't feel this was the reason in this case, since you only became a project member after adding the article to the project category. However, although I disagree with your actions and question your motivations, it's between you and the US project. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the UK project, but you may want to change it to an English one if you think it too broad. Also, there are several other projects that could be added. In this way, we increase the chances for article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to Project USA 

message: Thanks to User:Jesse V. of the Wikipedia Color Project for stopping by and rating this article as "Start" class. However, if you will, please do let us know what we have to do to get a higher rating. We are trying to achieve WP:Good article status. Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Jesse V. gives Buff (color) a "start" class rating. 

message: I came here from seeing the "in the buff" hook for the Children's Museum, Siri Fort, currently in Prep 1. Since I don't see the meaning of the phrase covered anywhere in this article, I was going to add the following, but since the article is soon going to be linked from the main page, I thought I would propose it here first. What do you think of:
"In the buff", today meaning naked, originally applied to English soldiers wearing the buff leather tunic that was their uniform until the 17th century. The "naked" signification is due to the perception that (English) skin is buff-coloured.  
to go in the Derived terms section? If this usage isn't covered here, the hook loses its hookiness. A thought. Awien (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so.  I read the link and that's a fair summary.  Go ahead, have at it.  We can always tighten up the language or whatever later if needed.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, will do. Feel free to tweak as you see fit. Oh, and you'll need to fix the ref. I don't know how to do the new form. Cheers, Awien (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but did you notice the "Cite" menu at the top of the edit window?  It makes it easy.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No . . . live and learn! Thanks, Chrisrus. Awien (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the buff 

message: Odd thing is that buff is often very similar to (some shades of) khaki, yet the article fails to mention this similarity. 
One thinks of khaki being a light shade of yellow-brown, yet it’s often described as being nearer to an olive colour. So in a sense khaki, as a colour, is hard to pin down to a specific shade: it also has historical connotations in terms of military use, so it becomes a kind of notion. …Interestingly buff echoes this, partly as the definition of it (as a specific colour) is slightly changeable and fluid. Buff and khaki are both sandy. Both have a military connection. So the reason one mentions all this is simply the fact that if we consider buff at any point to be “sand-coloured” …and we also see buff as a kind of notional / abstract thing, then therefore, in both ways, it's similar to khaki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.214 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence / possible interchangeability with khaki 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Buff (colour). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628074235/http://www.paintassistant.com/rybrgb.html to http://www.paintassistant.com/rybrgb.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628195155/http://www.sterlingtimes.org/memorable_images10.htm to http://www.sterlingtimes.org/memorable_images10.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130125204828/http://www.goldposters.com/item-1872594/john-bull-and-his-bulldog.html to http://www.goldposters.com/item-1872594/john-bull-and-his-bulldog.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After "Ian Paterson (2003). A Dictionary of Colour (1st paperback ed.), London: Thorogood (published 2004), p. 73" 
: buff is a pale yellowish-brown colour; a light yellow; of the colour of buff leather which having regard to its proximity to human skin colour gave rise to the phrase ‘in the buff’ meaning ‘naked’. Also ‘buff-coloured’.
After "Oxford English Dictionary (OED)"
: buff - Of the colour of buff leather; a light brownish yellow
After "Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Volume 1"
: Buff: A pale yellowish-brown colour; a light yellow; of the colour of buff leather which having regard to its proximity to human skin colour which gave rise to the phrase ‘in the buff meaning ‘naked’. Also ‘buff-coloured’.. --Danvasilis (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ochreous - Of the colour of ochre; spec. of a light brownish yellow.. --Danvasilis (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Are you proposing a change, Danvasilis; and if so, a change to what, exactly? -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition