This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says that this is the color to indicate baby boys. Any corresponding color to indicate baby girls?? Georgia guy 01:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Added a note to this effect. --Chatoyant 15:57, 24 June 2005 (UTC)
the following reference has been called in to question on google answers, A researcher looked for the cited reference and could not find it. "There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." [Ladies Home Journal, June, 1918]
it is possible the reference is wrong, it is also possible it is fake and the citation has been passed around to justify the quote photodude 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
An American newspaper in 1914 advised mothers, "If you like the color note on the little one's garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention."<ref>''The Sunday Sentinel'', March 29, 1914.</ref> ''Ladies Home Journal'' in 1918 reported: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."<ref>''Ladies Home Journal'', June, 1918</ref>
The discovery of this ‘‘pink-blue reversal’’(henceforth PBR)is usually attributed to Paoletti (1987, 1997, 2012).
On the face of it, the claim being made is quite extraordinary, especially if one considers the strong inertia of gender-related norms and conventions. The reader may be surprised to learn that Paoletti herself never endorsed the PBR in her own articles and books. Rather, she made the weaker claim that the gender coding of pink and blue was inconsistent — not reversed — at the beginning of the twentieth century and that the current pink-blue convention only became dominant in the 1950s (Paoletti, 1987, 1997, 2012). [1]
"Pink is for girls, or dowagers;" [2]
"The boy is dressed in his best blue jacket and white trousers, and the girl in her new pink frock." [3]
Of course my baby was to be a bottle baby....
I was radical, progressive, hated restraint and conventionalism, and duty....
How sweet were my slumbers that night! My brain had been exercised over cooperative housekeeping; and in my dreams I beheld driving round the neighborhood every two hours, from a central kitchen, little wagons,--pink for girls, blue for boys,--containing shelves with various sized apertures in them, holding the necks of baby bottles, that were maintained at the right temperature by a self-heating apparatus. O this nineteenth century! this blessed age of invention, when even an infant's food is systematically and modestly conveyed to each child without the encumbrance of family arrangements! How was baby-tending any longer to interfere with intellectual and female development?
[4]
"To facilitate distribution by the librarian, have green cards for boys and pink for girls." [5]
"The scholar receives from the librarian a card, size 3 1/2 by 2 1/2 inches, blue for boys, green for girls..." [6]
In another room we saw six pine coffins, containing the little ones who had died that day. Their shrouds were cotton cloth, scalloped by scissors and the sleeves and wrists, with a pink bow in the cap if a girl, and blue if a boy. [7]
BABY'S BLANKET: "Blue is used for boys', pink is for girls'. [8]
Some one color should be chosen for the baby's belongings and used wherever color is permissible. Pink for a girl and blue for a boy is the established usage. Pale green, crimson, and yellow are all pretty. [9]
It is then weighed, measurements made of its length, size of head and chest, which are inscribed on a card, blue for boys and pink for girls, bearing its name, age, and sex; in fact, all important data can be found upon this card. [10]
How Russia Cares for her Foundlings
By J. L. Hildreth, M.D., Cambridge, Mass.
Read before the Cambridge Medical Improvement Society, April 25, 1898.
The two sexes are distinguished by the boys having blue and the girls pink cards, bearing their names and numbers, fastened about the neck; also the same color upon some part of their clothing. It seemed odd to find, in far-off Russia, the very same assignment of colors as among the petted babies of our own land. [11]
When the dues are paid, each child receives a badge--pink for girls, and blue for boys. [12]
...parcels neatly tied up in ribbon--blue for boys, and pink for girls.... [13]
p. 32 Blue - the color supposed to exercise a gracious influence over the budding destinies of, and to be especially becoming and appropriate to, boy babies as, conversely, pink is for girls.
p. 187 Pink - alleged English for red; used only in connection with hunting coats (properly scarlet refines). Pink - a color not to be worn by boy babies.[14]
All dealers are familiar with the increasing use of special form announcements to herald the arrival of the new born. ... There are two boxes, the prevailing color of one being pink, for girls, and the other blue, for boys. [15]
Color: Pink for girls, Light blue for boys. [16]
The sexes have their own colors, beginning in the nursery with blue for boys, pink for girls. [17]
"Pink is for girls, Jack."[18]
Case papers take the form of cards, pink for girls, blue for boys [19]
BLUE FOR BOYS; PINK FOR GIRLS
For many years the correct colors for use in connection with birth announcements and many other articles pertaining to or used for babies has been a much mooted question. Most good authorities have maintained that blue for a boy and pink for a girl is undoubtedly correct, while others have insisted that pink for a boy and blue for a girl is proper. So universal did this difference of opinion become that finally, at the suggestion of the Whiting Paper Co., a questionnaire on the subject was sent out by the National Association of Steel and Copper Plate Engravers in an effort to set an authoritative standard of color. Their report is embodied in a circular sent out to the members of the association which reads as follows:
"In the new edition of 'Proper Forms' an attempt to set some standard of color for birth cards has been made. Our questionnaire replies showed cities totaling 12,000,000 people using blue for a boy--cities totaling 6,000,000 using pink for a boy. We believe the majority should be correct and think some record will help standardize it--it is not imperative--when doubtful, advise white."
[20]
BLUE FOR BOYS,
PINK FOR GIRLS
The Daily...conducted a two-day poll...on the prohibition question.... Men voted on blue ballots, women on pink, so the results could be kept separate.
[21]
PINK is for girls.
Blue is for boys.
But tattle-tale GRAY for a baby?
NEVER!
[22]
"Pink is for girls, Blue is for boys." -C- Feb. 25th, 1939 A 98213"
Fenner and Beane, New York 21684-21689 [23] Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The color looks *nothing like baby blue*! Do a image search for baby blue, 90% of the hits look more blue than what's on wikipedia. So whatever a book in 1930 said, it's no longer correct in today use. (Assuming the 1930s book is the reference for the used color in the article RGB (r, g, b) (224, 255, 255)).
http://www.colourlovers.com/img/89CFF0/228/207/baby_blue.png
That's much more close to what people are actually using to mean baby blue as evidenced by thousands of images and photos. 88.115.115.16 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE! Also note this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_blue&oldid=13668722
The original article where the "baby blue == light cyan" idea came from has no reference used! So even though the current article uses some old book as reference, notice that there's no certainty whether that was ACTUALLY USED for the original article! It looks like some color blind person made the original article. Unfortunately since I have no background on working with color or interest to fight whoever made this obvious mistake I'll leave it up experts get some betting backing research on what the used RGB value should be. 88.115.115.16 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Baby blue. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have some concerns about this article. My present focus is the section "baby blue eyes".
One way to express my concern is to discuss how this article might be used by a reader. Imagine a school child being given an assignment to do some research about the color " baby blue eyes". The instructor is given the class some appropriate warnings — they should be very cautious about using Wikipedia for research, and can only use information from Wikipedia if they confirm that the information they choose to use its backed up by a source.
That pupil reads this article and feels confident identifying baby blue eyes as a unique color whose color attributes have the hex triplet:
This seems like a plausible conclusion.
However, I have a few issues.
If you start with the embedded link in the color coordinate template to Plochere, you find it's a dead link. That's not a good start, and probably should be addressed but let's understand the scope of the issues first.
Instead of using the link and the color coordinate template, use the link at the end of the text, which does have a link to a web archive site. That page does have a reference to baby blue eyes, and the site also supports the hex triplet.
However, while it is acceptable to use a web archive link, I'm troubled by the fact that the company has a current working site Plochere Color System Home But I wasn't able to find a reference to that color or that hex triplet on the site. That might mean I just don't know how to look, but it troubles me. If we were talking about an archaic name, identified as such, I'd have absolutely no problem using a web archive link and the fact that the current site doesn't have such information may mean that the company no longer supports that color. However, the article is suggesting that it's not an archaic term and in fact, I don't think it is an archaic term. I am troubled by the fact that the reference for the color is to a company which doesn't seem to currently have any relevant information.
The next problem can be seen at that web archive page. Note that, in addition to an entry for baby blue eyes with hex code #a1caf1, there is a second entry for baby blue eyes with a different hex code #b3bce2.
Now we see the beginning of what will be a theme; there may be multiple hex codes associated with this name. While in many cases, that will be because different companies have slightly different colors we have at least one situation of a single company with two different hex codes for the same name.
As an additional complication, note that the site has a color with a different name, baby blue, but with the same hex code as one of the baby blue eyes #a1caf1. I note this article has an entry for baby blue with different hex codes.
If one pokes around on the Internet, we can find multiple sites all using baby blue eyes as a color but with a range of hex values.
For example:
Note that many of these colors are quite similar to each other but the last entry in this list is an exception with a very different color. Note also that in some cases there was a uniform swatch. A color picker generated a unique value any place on the swatch, but others had a variety of options and I chose a representative location to select the X value using a color picker
My tentative conclusion is that baby blue eyes is a real color but not one for which there is complete agreement on its color attributes. The paint companies seem to cluster in a narrow range but other companies aren't necessarily so close. I think this should be reflected in the article to disabuse the reader of the impression that baby blue eyes is uniquely defined in terms of its color attributes.
While that suggest a way to rewrite this article, I'm here because I'm working on List_of_colors:_A–F, and I haven't yet figured out how to populate that list with a range of values or with multiple values.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Trivialist: The color Bubbles (#E7FEFF = (231, 254, 255)) was removed here with the summary no indication that this name has any use outside of this site
.
There are many hits with a google search for "E7FEFF" and "bubbles", though it's reasonable to conclude that much of it is WP:CIRCULAR, as many of those sites don't seem to bother citing their sources. However, there is this XONA page (date confirmed as 2006-03-15 by archive). Bubbles was not added to Baby blue until 2008-09-19T02:32:11Z, 2.5 years later. Doucette's source was apparently Resene Paints, which has a 2001 copyright notice, but was unfortunately not archived until 2007 (still pre-dating WP, though).
I think it's reasonable to include it here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Baby Blue is the name of the official aerobatics team of the Danish air force. Unfortunately, so far there also seems to be no wikipedia page on this topic. Still, I would find it important to list this meaning on the disambiguation page. 2A00:20:3044:AFF0:B130:343F:8FB7:600E (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)