Talk: Color

==Early talk==
two things: A) should this be Color Pie?<BR>
b) Make sure not to simply copy/paste from MaRo's article, that's illegal. [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 23:47, 22 January 2007 (CST)

:A) Since the color wheel is of limited explanation and depth, yes, I suppose this should be color pie more than color wheel.<BR>
:B) Of course not, you'll find that there isn't an ounce of plagiarism or copy+pasting here. I've typed everything myself thus far. [[User:Zyrakris|Zyrakris]]

This article could use a short introduction of the topic and the history of the name before instantly goes into long pieces of text about flavor and Charlotte. :D [[User:Sneakyhomunculus|Sneakyhomunculus]] 06:07, 23 January 2007 (CST)

:I also agree on changing the name to Color Pie. title Changed. [[User:votan|votan]] 13:18, 23 January 2007 (GMT)

::Agreed, it could use some kind of explanation of how the color pie came into being and what-not, but I'm not entirely familiar with the history. [User: Zyrakris]

:::Hmm, I actually preferred Color Wheel to Color Pie, but po-tay-to po-tah-to. I also agree that some sort of introduction of the color pie, both its history and what it actually is, would be great. Makes it more Magicpedia-like. ;-) --[[User:GWiZ665|GWiZ665]] 16:56, 23 January 2007 (CST)

::::This article looks like it could get extremely long. Perhaps it would be wise to divide it into articles for each of the colours, with "Color Pie" being focused more on the pie as a whole? [[User:Silver Surfer|Silver Surfer]] 12:53, 5 February 2007 (CST)

::Sorry for the delay and neglect, but as [[User:Silver Surfer|Silver Surfer]] suggested, it is a bit long, and I recommend that you should make use of <nowiki>{{Main}}</nowiki>, so as to break down the article into shorter, more manageable segments. Here, a rough outline linking each individual colour page would be fine, in my opinion.
::Also, can we get a better name than "What White likes about its allies and hates about its enemies", please? With all due respect, it's a pretty tacky title, and it's extremely long for one, especially when it could and should be shorter. Thanks so far, though. --'''[[User:Magic Mage|MM]]''' '''([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])''' 06:12, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

:"Make sure not to simply copy/paste from MaRo's article, that's illegal." - VestDan.<BR>
:Lies! So long as you cite and reference your sources, and have a bibliography and/or references section, you're A-OK. I must say... you're... for one, been supplanted. ^.^ <small>'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</small> 07:39, 18 November 2007 (GMT)

== Small Pie Image ==

I moved the image so it appears at the top of the article. When you get to the article it starts with the big index. I think it looks good for an image to appear at the top also. --[[User:GeoMike|GeoMike]] 08:47, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've had a go breaking this up into more manageable articles. I've changed [[White]], [[Blue]], [[Black]], [[Red]] and [[Green]] into articles about the colour, rather than just redirects to this article. This article now focuses on A) the colour pie as a whole; B) brief summaries of the flavour of each colour with links to their individual articles; C) how each colour interacts with the others on the pie. Thoughts? [[User:Silver Surfer|Silver Surfer]] 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds as a good way to do it. Each of the segmented pages should of course start with a refference to the color pie. I know the guilds are also being worked on, but we should work towards naming the whole spectrum of color combinations so that they all have a solid foundation to build on. Perhaps we could force some names into existance or pick an old name to represent triplecolors and quadrocolors (Dragons from legends? The nephilims?)[[User:Faceless Wanderer|Faceless Wanderer]] 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While we are splitting the colors into their own articles, I think it would be prudent to put all "agreements" and "disagreements" into those individual articles as well. I would rather that this article focuses on the philosophical overview of each color and on the rules attached to a given color. 

*Wheel'o'color: Overview of colors and their primary traits and rules. E.g. Black: Pay life.
*Color-article: In-depth look at the color in question and on all its interactions with other colors. Also this could have the more "questionable" rules spelled out, such as card drawing for green, haste for black and so on.
--[[User:GWiZ665|GWiZ665]] 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yo, just a handy hint; one can use <nowiki>{{Main|Article name}}</nowiki> to render some pretty thingy. I've used it on the [[MTG Salvation]] and The Colosseum, amongst numerous other, pages. It's a template so it's such a convenience; saving time and effort with all that wiki mark-up. =) <small><font color="darkblue">'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</font></small> 11:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've gone with [[user:GWiZ665|GWiZ665]]'s suggestion and moved agreements/disagreements into the individual colour articles, plus included each colour's main mechanics here. [[User:Silver Surfer|Silver Surfer]] 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:I've shrunk the image down to 350px wide, and cleaned up the links at the bottom of the page. Please consider rewriting this and associated articles; it's quite a read and fairly mind-numbing, to be frank, to read a wall of text. <small>'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</small> 07:37, 18 November 2007 (GMT)

== Old comments ==

<small>''Please use in-line referencing (<nowiki><ref></nowiki>...<nowiki></ref></nowiki> and perhaps a couple of the referencing templates). ¡Muchas gracias!'' <small>'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</small> 08:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

'''Update''': I have corrected cited and fixed up the articles, using templates. Now all you need to do is reference - and expand and break down the article. <small>'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</small> 07:07, 18 November 2007 (GMT)

== 10th ==
I've uploaded the color wheel from the [[Tenth Edition]] Starter Game. Maybe it can be used somewhere in the article - or not.  Just thought it was ''different''. --[[User:GeoMike|GeoMike]] 04:18, 15 February 2008 (GMT)

{{clear}}

== Individual Color page topics ==

I didn't want to post this on each individual color's page (i.e. [[Green]] page, [[Red]] page ...)  After visiting each color, I noticed their "topics" were not the same.  I'd like to correct this.  White has the most topics and I believe it might have too many and the information could be better redistributed among other topics.  While Red's page is lacking and could be nominated for an Article to be improved for the week.

[[Green]]'s topics
#Flavor
#Rules
#Mechanics
#Green-Aligned Tribes
#Interactions with other colors
##Agreements
##Disagreements

[[White]]'s topics
#Flavor
#Strengths
#Weaknesses
#Individual expression
##Attributes
##Relationships
##Strengths
##Weaknesses
#Misconceptions and Controversies
#Interactions with other colors
##Agreements
##Disagreements

[[Blue]]'s topics
#Flavor
#Rules
#Mechanics
#Interactions with other colors
##Agreements
##Disagreements

[[Black]]'s topics
#Flavor
#Interactions with other colors
##Agrements
##Disagreements
#Rules
#Mechanics
#Black-Aligned Tribes
#Trivia

[[Red]]'s topics
#Flavor
#Rules

Notice all of the white topics.  I didn't include Mechanic subtopics in this list as they would be different for each color anyway.  Comments?  --[[User:GeoMike|GeoMike]] 03:23, 1 April 2008 (BST)

:We need to figure out what model we want for the pages and stick to it.  I agree White needs to be pruned.  I think we need to get a "relations with other colors" in each one, as well as "evergreen keywords," "Mechanics," and "Tribes."  Also, I recently split Red's "Flavor" into "Philosophy" and "Flavor" and created the talk page to discuss it, wherein I suggest doing so for every color.  I am strongly for removing any "Rules" sections in any of these article, at most merging it with that color's "Flavor" section.  Finally, I think we should consider if we want to look at each part of a color's slice of pie explicitly, as is done on Black's page (Amorality and Parasitism).  It's not a good format for describing things which are just core that color, though, so I think we should merge those sections in [[Black]] somehow.  [[User:Horseshoe Hermit|Horseshoe Hermit]] 05:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

::I posted my original list of topics back in April, no one had any comments since then. But, I'm glad to see you are helping [[User:Horseshoe Hermit|Horseshoe Hermit]], thanks :) --[[User:GeoMike|GeoMike]] 10:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

== Minor Points ==
I was just reading this when I noticed that the fourth bullet point on white mechanics is slightly untrue.  While white spells or abilities that destroy artifacts but not enchantments are rare, they do exist.  According to my gatherer search, there are two cards that destroy or exile only artifacts and not enchantments: <c>Divine Offering</c>, and <c>Dust to Dust</c>. [[User:Tycho Zzyx|Tycho Zzyx]] 00:21, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for your observation, I removed the line that said such from white's mechanics section. --[[User:GeoMike|GeoMike]] 11:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

== Colour Pie graphic ==
Opposite the image is the text 'The order of the colour pie is always the same, WUBRG...'. The pie graphic (apparently from WotC?) is WUBGR :( --[[User:DrKramshaw|DrKramshaw]] ([[User talk:DrKramshaw|talk]])

==Updated terminology==
I see that this article still uses the old color wheel, andi'd like to point out that Maro as gone on record as saying he doesn't support the terminology uses in thsi graphics. Mosty notably "parasitism" and "technology" are no longer what he considers good fits to describe the color. Maybe we should create a separate section to talk about the wheel and what it would look like today with updated terminology.
He recent year, he's also started describing the goal of the colors with a sentence structured like this "___ through ___".
ex: White is "Peace through order", Red is "Freedom through Action", etc
I'm not sure where to put this though.
oh, and i took the liberty of replacing "intelligence" as the blue defining trait and replaced it with the more apt "Curiosity" (the research of knowledge).
Blue being intelligent is the same short-cut as "black is evil and white is good" that is simply untrue (see Spongebob as the perfect example of a non-smart blue character, as it isoften reminded on blogatog)