Talk:Chartreuse (color)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Color WikiProject, a project that provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Merger proposal

I propose that we remove the "web oriented" perspective of both Chartreuse (color) and Chartreuse yellow and merge the two articles. I have placed a merge proposal on both pages, directing here, so that people may discuss. Unless there are objections, I will merge them into the yellowish color. SeanAhern (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Object The two colors Chartreuse (color) and Chartreuse yellow are pure chromas, i.e. pure spectrum colors. They are both at different positions on the color wheel so they should remain separate. Any possible linguistic confusion is exhaustively and adequately covered in the articles. Keraunos (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree that the linguistic confusion is adequately covered in the articles. Any discussion that attempts to base changes in language in the practices of HTML coders and web design is inadequate. The introduction of HTML color palettes is likely insufficient to form the basis of language change. Thus, I believe that wikipedia is incorrectly documenting the language of color for chartreuse. Furthermore, when I search other references on the web, this "two color" distinction is not apparent. Wikipedia is the only reference I can find that suggests that there could be a dichotomy. SeanAhern (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole situation is confusing enough without merging the articles. That would make it even more confusing for people. Also, there is the problem of the color in human culture sections. Many municipalities use chartreuse yellow fire engines nowadays. There has to be some way to differentiate between the two colors so people don't get confused. Also, all the other color articles in the Wikipedia are all based on the web colors. Keraunos (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Most of the external references that I've found say that chartreuse is a somewhat wide-ranging color that can incorporate both precise ones. Language allows for imprecision. Web colors do not. SeanAhern (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If the other Wikipedia color articles are based on web colors, that argues toward leaving it consistent. I can argue that wikipedia should NOT be based on web colors, but that's a different argument. SeanAhern (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The cited source for most of the traditional color names, Maerz and Paul, shows Chartreuse very close to chartreuse yellow and chartreuse green. Other than that, the enshrining of chartreuse yellow as a color of its own seems to be unsourced. I'm merging them. Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Web oriented, deceiving article

I think this article is seen and presented from a "web" perspective. You have to read a lot to find out this is not the colour that most people call chartreuse, and, to my point of view, is the REAL chartreuse, I mean, since when "web-colours" define what a colour is called by the society? If everybody but computer geeks call chartreuse-yellow chartreuse, that is how it should be called in this article. Or maybe making a dissambiguation page, or a better explaination on the start of the article!

[edit] Tertiary colors

Hmm... the last time I checked, Chartreuse was a shade of green. Oh Wikipedia, how you confuse me

Let me see what all the tertiary colors are. They are (I believe) the same in RGB and CMY.

Georgia guy 00:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colour wheel and huge image

I pulled the colour wheel (and the discussion of it and table of all chromas(!)) and the huge image of a chartreuse field. Those were unnecessary for any purpose this article title could possibly be used for. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1972 Chartreuse Crayola

I've been wrong for years about chartreuse, because of that damn crayon. I've finally seen the light. Or the color. Big thanks to whomever explained the crayola connection! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.49.26 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I don't know why someone said it was pronounced "car tours", unless it's from some dialect of English I'm not familiar with. I replaced it with the "official" IPA pronunciation, according to dictionary.com. --Tea and crumpets 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)