Wikipedia talk:Use color sparingly

Supporters of this rule include: StefanRybo, drj (strongly), sjc, GWO (strongly), tbc, Damian Yerrick, Josh Grosse, AxelBoldt, Enchanter, 24 (strongly - color should be added by the user interface for other things, it should never be part of the text itself), Rotem Dan

Opponents include: In general I agree; especially with regular old wikipedia articles. However, in many cases the use of color adds additional very useful information to a table or chart. See Periodic table, talk:isotope and Beryllium for examples. The colors have to be chosen carefully and some thought must go into their logical use. See discussion at talk:periodic table and talk:isotopes. Color should never be used just for the sake of using color. --maveric149

Shading on a table can make it stand out, and it adds some nice contrast to the rest of the article. We should be using color about as much as print encyclopedias do, which is to say, not much. For special features like photos and tables, I'd say that colors should be used. Nothing too loud though, and the color should not be visible on the Printable version (for readability when printing in black and white). --cprompt

---

I'm actually pretty ambivalent about this one. Sure, there's nothing worse than obnoxious gee-whiz angry-fruit-salad mishmash of color without reason, but we shouldn't be afraid to use the medium when it's called for either. If an occasional use of color in a table or something makes it easier to read, I have no objection to it. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

---

I should note, BTW, that the colors on the tables over in Talk:Isotope are currently provisional and will be muted somewhat in the final product. I really should get back to work on that now that my exams are over... :) Anyway, I agree that color can be quite good and decent and useful, under the proper circumstances. Angry fruit salad, on the other hand, will be edited out by people with more taste. Bryan Derksen