Talk:Color/Archive 3

message: So now editing the spelling on the main article is regarded as vandalism? So just because someone has an agenda to keep American spelling in domination of this INTERNATIONAL encyclopaedia we create a special rule for vandalism. I say someone has the guts to stand up to this constant Americanisation and have Commonwealth english, the form used internationally outside of the states, made the standard requirement for all articles other than those specifically related to the USA. If anyone has a problem with this then create Ameriwikipedia and keep using all the sloppy spelling conventions made up out of thin air by Noah Webster back in the 19th century. AntonioBu 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AntonioBu, this issue has been convered extensively (and arguably exhaustively) on this talk page as well as its archives. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English for an explanation of the spelling guidelines that Wikipedia follows. I would also like to remind you to please remain civil and not jump to conclusions of bad faith. -- Laura S | talk to me 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or read the section right above this one. Even just the link to wikt:color. Color was the original latin spelling. The french gave us the 'u'. Blame the Normans. -Quiddity 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think that the spelling on this page is not correctly following Wikipedia:Manual of Style, please say so. If you disagree with the Manual of Style, please discuss it on that article's talk page; Wikipedia is not to be used to make a point, and the participants in this page cannot set a policy contrary to Wikipedia's main policy. Thank you. Notinasnaid 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My response was a direct reply to your quote "editing the spelling on the main article is regarded as vandalism?", not a challenge to the idea that the talk page is for discussion. I have copied your reply here because it seems the best place to respond to the specific point you raise in it. From the history of the article you will see that at regular intervals people do change the article, often in the process damaging many internal links and categories, which cannot be described as "improving", hence the description "making a point". While it is not inappropriate to discuss spelling here, I feel it is pointless, for reasons already covered. If you want to challenge the Wikipedia policy, then I recommend you do it where the policy makers are to be found. Notinasnaid 06:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...or you can vote here :-) PizzaMargherita 11:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original spelling of the word is colour and that is the most widely used spelling so that is how the article should be spelt Guess who i am 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: Hello, ive been reading the threads and it would make more sense to call the article Color (Colour).
By doing so we are showing equality. Thanks .. 81.159.68.216
:I applaud striving for equality, but Wikipedia policy and guidelines don't recommend/suggest solutions of the sort you've offerred. Perhaps, though, you could bring this up at one of the policy discussion areas. (Click on Help on the left, and follow the links.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 21:58 (UTC)
::I don't think that would help. The argument would simply move on to which spelling gets to be in brackets or which spelling should come first. Yay unto the Chicken 10:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about calling it Colo(u)r and pointing both Color & Colour at it? (please excuse me if someone has said this before) 82.13.83.244 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's unfortunate we can't just set up a mirror article, exactly the same in all but title, without redundant edits; after the two spellings are introduced in the first line it doesn't matter what you call it throughout. I can't see the wikipedia boys doing this any time soon though, as this argument is so petty. mrhappyhour 10 Oct 2006
The mirror article thing sounds good....however, one point has been missed.
This is the ENGLISH Wiki. As in, the Wiki with the language of the people of the nation of England. England spells the word colour, so the name of the article should be colour Lenzar 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The language is called English because England is where the language historically belonged to. Today, it belongs to many countries. Different countries have different versions of English, e.g. American English, British English. However, the languages are all variants of English; none of them have diverged far enough to be considered separate languages. Georgia guy 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lenzar, this is all very jejune. I think your line of reasoning is deeply flawed. Without wishing to be more patronising than is strictly necessary here, may I suggest that you spend a little time working on your written style, instead of campaigning for such a vapid cause? You might start with re-thinking such constructions as this: As in, the Wiki... (see above); we are having an affect on the eco-system (from your own page; do you understand your error in that one?); and with incorrect/American spellings and have to lose out/pay more taxes (both from your page, and both automatically taking on the ugly construction with "/": very American!). You are young, but you will learn. – Noetica 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, even if a bit more partonizing (patronising?) than strictly necessary. Dicklyon 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Objecting that performing an operation will take too much effort is not a suitable argument... One could ask what the point is, therefore, in ensuring a lengthy article is well referenced if it will take too much 'effort' to check? Plain and simple, if it should be done, do it. Articles should be 'correct' and 'neutral', and major changes that have been agreed upon (and minor changes that do not require discussion), should be carried out, no matter how long it may take or how much work it would require. 
And secondly, saying that word, in it's Latin root, is one such spelling therefore this spelling should be used is nonsense. This is the English Wikipedia, not a Latin Wikipedia... The words used in an article should come out of modern English tongues (excepting names of historical concepts or words used exclusively as illustration of these concepts - noting the spellings and grammatical form of Middle English, for example), unless quoting a completely foreign word... 'Colour' is not a completely foreign word. 
(And if there exist complaints that this is a topic that has been argued to death, then evidently there must exists some points to the argument(s) that some believe have not been fully - or correctly - discussed and acted upon...) --Mister Macbeth 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear what your comment applies to.  I find no reference to "too much effort"; just "waste of effort" and "not worht any more effort", which have a completely different meaning.  Anyway, if you're trying to express an opinion on the spelling issue, that seems pointless (waste of effort) here, since there's already an accepted policy that we follow here. Dicklyon 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A passing comment...

message: The text in "Measurement and reproduction of color" says "...where the chromaticity diagram above has a nearly straight edge" but there's no diagram on the page. There is a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_XYZ_color_space.
I added the missing cie xy diagram. Dicklyon 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing diagram 

message: I'm looking to start up Wikipedia:WikiProject_Color again. It seems to have been dormant for a while, even though there was a lot of great work and discussion already done. Anyone care to join me? --Laura S 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Color 

message: Does anyone know where the names of colours originated from and why? I'm doing a research project on the query, but if anyone does know it'd be much appreciated. Thanks.
--Liddia Tyke June 2nd, 2006
:Knowledge questions should be directed to Wikipedia:Reference desk; the article "discussion" pages are just for discussing article contents/creation.  (The Color names article might have some of what you're looking for too.) Thanks :) -Quiddity 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: try http://etymonline.com/ --Quiddity 19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . I don't know about the names of other colors but in case of orange i am sure that the name of the fruit was taken from the name of the color and not vice-versa.59.94.178.200 06:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the colour orange is named after the fruit. --Zundark 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Anyone Know

message: This article has no inline citations. I've been trying to find some, and so far, have had a lot of trouble. For claims like the wavelengths of the "human visible spectrum", I've found several sources that all disagree with each other and with the article. I'm tempted to pick one that seems "average", change the article to that, and cite it, but if someone could cite the original claim that would be better. Then there are statements like "low-intensity orange-yellow is brown", which seems to make sense, but it would be really nice if we could source it. Does anyone (especially those who contributed to this article) have references for some of the specific claims in this article? -- Laura S | talk to me 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline Citations 

message: User:WAS changed the opening on 21 Aug 05 [diff] to 
* "Color or colour is the perception of the frequency (or wavelengh) of light, just as pitch (or a musical note) is the perception of the frequency (or wavelengh) of a sound."
which started the improper focus on wavelength, even though it kept for the time the notion of perception.  It also introduces the non-useful analogy of pitch (a one-dimensional percept) for color (a 2D or 3D concept that is more commonly associated with a sound's timbre).
Dicklyon 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found it

message: I recommend we write a new lead to focus on color as perception, and to include right up front the application of color to objects, materials, and lights or something like that, and to remove or de-emphasize the one-dimensional wavelength or frequency view.  Please respond here with "*Support" or "*Oppose" followed optionally by a comment and ~~~~, like this:
*Support, of course, since it was my idea. Dicklyon 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and welcome your comments on the first attempt that I have made. If I'm too narrow there, say so. Dicklyon 04:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for lead, with POLL

message: Color or colour (see spelling differences) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, yellow, white, etc.
I would suggest that colour is a percieved property of an object or of light (or of a grapheme or hallucination) rather than it being a "perceptual property". Reading the talk I see that I am not the only person who does not understand what a "perceptual property" is or what exactly it is a property of. In general and technical usage people talk about an object or some light being "blue" or "red" or whatever, they talk about the colour of an object (as they percieve it) rather than the colour of their perception (an interesting but very different concept).
People percieve colour differently and this needs to be reflected in the introduction but colour is still a property of something as it is percieved by an individual. Even grapheme->colour synaesthetes (at least those that I have met or read) talk about colours as being a property of the words or letters while being fully aware that other people don't percieve this property.
My suggestion for the first two sentences is:
:Color or colour (see spelling differences) is a percieved property of an object or of light, usually loosely related to the physical properties of light entering the eye. Color derives from  light interacting in the eye with light receptors that respond differently to different wavelenghths of light. 
I think this is clearer because it has most of the concepts of the previous version but avoids jargon like "spectrum". I personally would remove "loosely" from what I have written because "related" already implies that the link is not precisely defined but I'm trying to keep everyone happy.
Suggestions?
Threetwoone 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would remove "usually loosely" and just say it's "related".  To me, spectrum is not "jargon".  It is perhaps too technical for general readers though, so you guys can decide. Dicklyon 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percieved or perceptual

message: Yes, I referred to 
 (But this is philosophically disputable. Since red or green mirrors exist, 
 for example, why should we deny that standard mirrors are white?)
as "parenthetical philosophical ruminations" when I removed it.  It would have been more politic to say unencyclopedic and unverifiable, along with parenthetical.  If there's something to say, say it, not in parentheses.  But if it's going to be about the idea of a mirror being called white, I think I'll need to see a verifiable source for it.  I'm going to take it out again for now, and hope it will come back in better shape if there's something to say. Dicklyon 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Quiddity 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's the artifice of parentheses that you disapprove of, remove parentheses; if it is the enclosed content, remove the whole thing. Clarity is important! But why is the content to be thought any less "encyclopedic and unverifiable" than what precedes it ("Objects that reflect light of all wavelengths equally well (like standard mirrors) perhaps cannot be said to have any color")? That is conjectural, philosophical, and unsourced. It simply reports a philosophical opinion, without any stated source. In the interests of consistency, I am now removing it too. If anyone wants to restore it, let them show why it should be restored, but what had followed it removed: "(But this is philosophically disputable. Since red or green mirrors exist, for example, why should we deny that standard mirrors are white?)". (O, and let them provide a citation!) – Noetica 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see why you would go further with the removal, and I don't object.  But there is something to be said here about white versus colorless.  Here's an example source in case anyone wants to try to summarize it (or others):  Dicklyon 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical ruminations

message: The colour names used by Newton when he described the visible spectrum are different from what we use now.
blue-indigo-violet    has become
cyan-blue- violet
Newton's blue was different to ours.
Does anybody know when this happened?
Is it worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.31.160 (talk • contribs) 
:This is interesting. Do you have a reference? Notinasnaid 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift in colour terms in english 

message: Indigo was added recently. I want to know if anyone can come up with a consensus on whether the spectrum near the top of the article should include/exclude indigo. Any comments?? Georgia guy 14:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick GBS turns up several books that peg indigo at 420-440, and several that omit it, putting the boundary between violet and blue anywhere from 425 to 440.  I'm torn.  It's more physical, perceptual, and sensible without indigo, but it aligns better with conventional rainbow terminology with it. Personally, though, my opinion is revert indigo, as it's just misleading numerology in tribute to Newton. Dicklyon 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, sorry, when I wrote that I was thinking of the rainbow article.  There's really no good excuse to include indigo in the color article. Dicklyon 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, I took it out and put in a comment about indigo instead.  This should help provoke some comments here if anyone objects. Dicklyon 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrum with vs. without indigo 

message: Now, I understand that this has been discussed to death and a solution has already been decided - Color instead of Colour. However, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would prefer to see a word spelt as it is in their language. I am from the UK and thus I strongly appraise the term 'colour' as opposed to 'color'. Having said that, I understand that americans would strongly appraise 'color' as opposed to 'colour'. So, why not have some sort of preference of English (I.e. American English or UK English). I don't know, perhaps as a feature for a username, or something. And depending on which preference, the article(s) they read will be displayed in accordance to their preference. It may be a big update to cater for what some might think as a small problem, but I disagree. The spelling of something is extremely important in my opinion and I should be able to read an encyclopedia in my language, and not in someone elses. Regardless of the history of the term 'color', it still doesn't mean that the american spelling must be adopted. Gregh 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gregh, In fact there has been a proposal like that made, and discussed to death.  See the proposal here.  It seemed to me like a good proposal, but I get the feeling that it might never move forward.  I am an American, but often publish in British scientific journals, and so have learned not to be too hung up on one or the other spelling.  I probably would leave my setting on random if such a thing existed.  Edhubbard 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa, I didn't think I would be that unoriginal. Thanks for pointing me to it though, it's a huge discussion. Gregh 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better suggestion to clear up the colour/color problem 

message: I think it would be justified to make a poll showing both colour and color and if people want the english spelling or the latin spelling present as the title on the page.
:Please let us know if any part of Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English is unclear. Notinasnaid 14:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both spellings are variants of English, Latin is just a different language. Georgia guy 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do something useful instead. Look, I spell it "colour" everywhere else, but "color" when I edit here, since the page has that spelling established in it. Both are accepted English spellings, one is also a Latin spelling. Live with it, and move on. The topic warrants no futher discussion or expenditure of effort. – Noetica 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A poll would serve no purpose; we are already following wikipedia policy. Dicklyon 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: This is an international encyclopedia, therefore international English will be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ABCDER (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review extensive talkpage discussions on this topic. The current version is supported by wikipedia policy and editor consenus. Thanks. Doc  Tropics 19:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also please note that there's no such thing as "International English". WorldWide Update 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Anyone who uses the term "International English" doesn't understand English (what it has become over the last 50-60 years). --Truth About Spelling 16:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am profoundly offended by your blatant misuse of the word "spelt". All civilized people (ie, Americans) know that the only proper spelling is "spelled". I demand that you immediately refactor your comments accordingly, then turn yourself in at ANI to be perma-blocked. : ) Doc  Tropics 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Colour

message: The picture at the top of this article looks like it was made in about 2 minutes by someone noodling around in Photoshop. Commons has plenty of colourful pictures that are far less revolting. Here are a few examples:
Image:Glasfenster Schloss Charlottenhof.jpg
Image:Torun witraz piast 5 01.jpg
Image:Watercolours.jpg
Image:Gogh4.jpg
Image:VanGogh-starry night.jpg
Image:Turner, J. M. W. - The Fighting Téméraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken.jpg
Image:London, the Houses of Parliament, Sunlight Opening in Fog, by Claude Monet.jpg
Image:Seurat-La Parade detail.jpg
Image:Bluball2.jpg
Image:Acuarela.jpg
Image:Albrecht Dürer - Der Weiher im Walde (ca. 1497).jpg
Image:August Macke 019.jpg
Personally I'd go with the Fighting Temeraire or the August Macke painting. What does everyone else think? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not keen on the one we have either.  But these others also don't do it for me.  They are colorful, but not really representative of color per se, it seems to me. Dicklyon 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My view is that pictures should serve a purpose in the text. Pictures that serve no purpose other than decoration do not belong, in my view, and that would apply to all of the suggestions. On the other hand, can anyone say what purpose the current picture serves? There is a popular view that every article needs illustrations, but I do not share this. Notinasnaid 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I LIKE that pencils picture.  Color is the only thing that distinguishes the items in the picture from each other.  And I DO think that articles need illustrations. Dicklyon 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better picture to illustrate this subject