Talk:Color code

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved

Neither the proposer nor the sole supporting editor gives any policy reason for the proposed move. The two opposing editors give cogent reasons against the primary proposal.

• Color code → Color-coding
• Color-coding → Color-coding (graph theory)

– A color code is merely the consequence of using color-coding as a method. I think the method is more prominent. I propose to move this article to "Color-coding" (or "color coding" if that is the more proper title) and merge

• New to wikipedia, but this is a good suggestion. It should be accepted. My background is in Computer Science with graduate studies in Color Science and the moves are logical and make the topics more clear. TDcolor (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The normal name for an article should be its base noun (the code), not a derivative from it (the technique of using colors as codes to convey information). So the current name, "color code", is a better choice. Additionally, this article is primarily about the codes themselves, not about the general technique of choosing codes to convey information (which has a separate article,
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so proposing to usurp that title from a different article is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The use of colors to encode surgical instruments or signal gender are merely special cases of the broader topic of color coding (i.e. uses of colors to convey distinguishing information). The fact that the algorithmic technique "is not really about colors" seems at least curious for it to have that title. Perhaps color-coding is ambiguous? BD2412 T 05:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not the same thing. This article is about standardized assignments of colors to enumerated meanings, to convey those meanings to humans quickly and intelligably, in a broad class of contexts.
      color coding would make more sense in the context of this article (and currently redirects here), but I still think color code is a better choice of title. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Counter-proposal: keep the list of standardized color meanings in this article and the information visualization methods in its own separate article, as too different from each other to merge. Semaphores, traffic lights, and resistors are not really about information visualization, and for those sorts of topics the existence of a standardized code is more central than the coding process used to come up with it. Leave
    color coding to point to Color code (disambiguation) rather than here, so that the Filipinos can more directly find their traffic reduction system and the information visualizers can more directly find the infoviz without being distracted by semaphores, traffic lights, and resistors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Support second, neutral on first. I do not see any evidence that the term "color-coding", with a hyphen, dominantly refers to this very specialist topic.
  No such user (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In the second, "graph theory" is not even the right disambiguator. It's not a topic in graph theory. It's a method in algorithms (or more precisely parameterized complexity) that happens to be used for graphs (and hypergraphs, and related structures). That's a different area than graph theory. And try doing a Google Scholar search for these phrases and look at the citation counts to get a very different idea of which topics are specialist. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we went by Google Scholar for topics of general cultural applicability, the primary topic of Monty Hall would be Monty Hall problem. BD2412 T 20:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of color codes for real-world meanings like traffic lights (the current meaning of this article) may be of general cultural applicability, but your proposed takeover of that topic by an article about infovis research is not. It is not any less specialized than the algorithmic meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't consider it a takeover of "Color code" at all. The bulk of the content in the data visualization article is about very common problems of color coding generally - picking the right colors so the coding efficiently serves its purpose. That would be the content below the fold. There is always room to expand the cultural context, if for example material could be introduced on the history of color coding, the earliest instances of human use of the method, etc. BD2412 T 01:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "picking the right colors so the coding efficiently serves its purpose" is exactly the technical infovis topic. The article you are trying to take over is on a very different topic, the standardized sets of color-encoded information (NOT information visualization, just information, and NOT the process of picking those colors) that everyone knows about already. You are trying to have it both ways, by arguing that the common knowledge of these codes justifies the use of taking over their name for an article about a different and technical topic that is far from the primary meaning of the phrase. Look, I've published at least one technical paper on methods for choosing distinctive colors for visualizations [1]. I think it's an interesting topic. But it's a different topic from the topic of this article, a niche topic, and one that should not take over as the primary topic for this phrase. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you think that the use of colors to code information is a different topic from the methods for picking those colors? I think it is the common practice to cover both aspects in a single article. Textile, for example, discusses both what textiles are and are used for, and how they are made. BD2412 T 02:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think that the methods used to pick colors for information visualizations are in any way related to the methods used to standardize colors for color code standards for safety and engineering information. I think that it would be misleading and wrong to talk about color code standards for safety and engineering information (the widely-used and widely-known application of color codes) as if they are a subtopic of information visualization (a niche topic). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps a broader restructuring is needed then—one in which we talk about color coding in information visualization as one of several subtopics of color code standards for areas including (as the most significant major component) safety and engineering information. BD2412 T 03:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computer science has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Graphic design has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Noun preferred for an article that enumerates color codes. The article could be about something else but it's currently not so renaming it is putting the cart before the horse. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]