Talk:Chartreuse (color)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Color, 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal[edit]

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)

Web oriented, deceiving article[edit]

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!

The article sure is strange, but what I find strangest is the idea that Chartreuse as a shade more green than yellow is an invention of web color standards of the early 90’s. For what it’s worth, as a child I heard the word mostly used to describe a color of kitchen appliances that was popular in the 70’s, which was closer to green than yellow. Isn’t it, like most color names, used mostly to refer to a range of shades, not one specific one? Any sufficiently eye-popping yellow-green is called chartreuse to me, anyway. Is it possible we’re dealing with regional differences as well? I live in the US northeast and I have mostly (but not exclusively) encountered the word chartreuse used to refer to greener shades. -- (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where I have always lived in California, the color of those appliances that were popular in the 1970s has always been called avocado. Maybe that is because a lot of avocados are grown in California. However, I do think that avocado was the official name of the color of those appliances used by the appliance manufacterers. Keraunos (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Chartreuse was a color long before the web. And every time someone used that name for a color when I was growing up, it was the yellowish color. Same with crayons. Because of the smaller gamut originally found on computer monitors (256 colors) and then web graphics (colors formulated to avoid dithering), web colors are inaccurate. Just as CMYK cannot capture RGB colors. So you can't print a bright green that you see in RGB, and the colors won't match, eve if they have the same name (such as with Spot PMS colors to CMYK versions, which are approximations, and not the "real" PMS colors). So the "web" version is not the real color, and is a brighter lime green that was misnamed. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tertiary colors[edit]

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)

Colour wheel and huge image[edit]

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)

1972 Chartreuse Crayola[edit]

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 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure about this? I would need to see a 1970s or 80s Chartreuse crayon to confirm it. I think Chartreuse became Laser Lemon, not Atomic Tangerine. I believe Chartreuse was a green yellow, the traditional chartreuse fluorescent paint color (mentioned in this article). I believe Ultra Yellow was the amber color. - Parsa (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


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 --Tea and crumpets 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What type would be best for real life objects?[edit]

Traditional chartreuse or the web color?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary needs editing[edit]

Hey, somebody needs to clean up the first paragraph of this article, it says "it was named for . . . " twice, repeating the same information. I think it could be written better. Please fix it whoever thinks that they can! (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chartreuse[edit]

The OED claims that the first use of "chartreuse" for a colour was "a pale apple-green" in 1884. This contradicts the article, which says that the yellower shade came first, and pre-dates the reference given. (Maybe 1892 was the first use of the word to mean yellow but then it's less traditional!) Can anyone provide a source that explains why yellow is described as the more traditional one here? Nick (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the citation for green being earlier and reworded the yellow section. Now, it currently seems as though yellow is in fact less traditional. So I'm tempted to remove all use of the word "traditional" from the article. Any objections? The only reason I could see for keeping it is if someone could show that the green definition in fact fell out of use for a long time until it was resurrected in the '90s. Unless we can find a source that says that, it seems that both definitions were current for a long time, thus neither deserves the title of traditional. Nick (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation 2[edit]

As for the pronunciation, I marked the 1st one UK because it's only possible in non-rhotic dialects, of which RP is representative. It's not found in most of the US. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be your reasoning but the Anglosphere also includes places like Australia, South Africa and Canada, so "UK" is not appropriate. Even "Commonwealth" isn't right for this because, as I said in the edit summary, the first pronunciation is perfectly acceptable in the USA too. That's why I added an R, so now the first pronunciation is written for rhotic accents and non-rhotic speakers can just ignore the extra R. I thought this was a good compromise. Nick (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that's the way we normally do things when it's just a difference in rhoticicy, but I don't see where you added an R. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It said /ʃɑːˈtrɜːz/, now it says /ʃɑrˈtrɜːz/. It sounds like you agree, so long as we leave the rhotic version, it can be changed back to this pronunciation being universal (not just UK). Nick (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was looking for the other /r/. A rhotic version would be /ʃɑrˈtrɜrz/, which I don't think is even possible: the stressed syllable would have an /r/ followed by a syllabic /r/. In "rural" that's only possible because the first /r/ is labialized, but that doesn't happen with a /tr/. I've certainly never heard it. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, are we talking about the same thing here? I concede that a rhotic speaker might say /ʃɑrˈtrɜrz/ after hearing a non-rhotic speaker say /ʃɑːˈtrɜːz/, that would be natural. When you say that that's not possible, maybe you mean that that one's not acceptable because it puts an extra R where there isn't one in the spelling. If so, I agree.
When I said that /ʃɑrˈtrɜːz/ was the rhotic pronunciation, I meant that when a (very) rhotic French speaker says [ʃaʁtʁøz], a rhotic English speaker would hear /ʃɑrˈtrɜːz/. Do you not agree? It would be a major mishearing for them to interpret /ø/ as /ɜr/! Maybe /ø/ could be replaced with /ə/ by some speakers but I don't think we need to include this as well as /ɜː/. Nick (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
When I say "not possible", I mean I think it violates rhotic phonotactics. AFAIK, you can't have a consonant-R cluster followed by a syllabic R. That would be like L followed by a syllabic L.
"a rhotic speaker might say /ʃɑrˈtrɜrz/ after hearing a non-rhotic speaker say /ʃɑːˈtrɜːz/". Yes, or they might at least try. But AFAIK that pronunciation would never occur spontaneously. It's not the rhotic pronunciation.
"It would be a major mishearing for them to interpret /ø/ as /ɜr/!". Yes, which is why they wouldn't say /ʃɑrˈtrɜrz/. /ɜː/ is not a vowel found in rhotic dialects, so they wouldn't say /ʃɑːˈtrɜːz/ either. So I marked it UK (as a stand in for non-rhotic), because it cant be transformed into a US pronunciation based on expected dialectical differences.
I think what the problem is, is that this is a foreign word that's not fully assimilated. Different dialects use different approximations. Like so many Polynesian words: Brits tend to approximate [a] with the 'cat' vowel, whereas Usonians tend to approximate it with the 'father' vowel, so you end up with UK & US versions. With [ø], Brits have a reasonable approximation in /ɜː/, but there is no close approximation in GA. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that no rhotic speaker ever says /ɜː/? Maybe I don't have a good enough grasp of rhotic phonetics - is that not the vowel when punctuating a pause? Because I thought that "er" and "uh" were equivalent. If not, do you think schwa would be the next closest?
I think we agree that /ʃɑrˈtrɜːz/ is a good approximation, we just disagree over whether it's a broad enough transcription for rhotic and non-rhotic accents. Ideally the first pronunciation given will be an approximation of the French pronunciation, transcribed as broadly as possible for English speakers (so that we can say it's acceptable everywhere). If you really think that's impossible, I guess we could make it [ʃɑˈtrɜːz] for rhotic and [ʃɑrˈtrəz] for non-rhotic. But 1. they're so close it's not worth distinguishing them and 2. a stressed schwa is not good in English.
Do you have any other suggestions? Nick (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, /ɜː/ does not exist in GA, or at least not in my dialect, which is fairly close to GA. "Uh" and "er" are pronounced /ʌ/ and /r/ (a simple syllabic ar). I had an 8th-grade teacher who said "er" all the time, so I know the sound well. (Not many other people use it around here; most say "uh".) Perhaps they're equivalent in RP, and here in GA "er" is an affectation given its spelling pronunciation, I don't know; but I doubt most Usonians would understand that they were supposed to be homonyms, just as they don't understand arse = ass. (It never dawned on me until you said it; then it seemed obvious. Is "uh" perhaps the GA equivalent of "er"?)
I've never heard the [ʃɑˈtrɜːz] pronunciation, or even a rhotic equivalent, unless perhaps it was on British TV or s.t. and I didn't notice. I used the [ʃɑrˈtruːs] pron. all the time as a kid, and anything else sounds markedly odd to me.
"I guess we could make it [ʃɑˈtrɜːz] for [non-]rhotic and [ʃɑrˈtrəz] for non-rhotic": My point is that we shouldn't have that pronunciation for rhotic at all. AFAIK it only works in non-rhotic dialects. We Yanks have similar trouble with Goebbels, where the best approximation is an RP vowel that GA speakers can't pronounce, though in that case I have heard people say ['grblz]., which is a US dictionary, only has [ʃɑr'tru:z, ʃɑr'tru:s].[1] (They don't even bother to try with Goebbels!)
I agree with you that RP should go first, since it's closest to the French, and US second. You may be right about labeling them 'non-rhotic' and 'rhotic'; which do rhotic dialects in England use? — kwami (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Having grown up in Australia, I couldn't tell you what pronunciation various rhotic accents in the UK use. They all learn French at school so maybe it's easy for them to approximate French vowels. Certainly for me [ʃɑˈtrɜːz] is instinctive just by analogy to other French words that every English speaker knows, like Pasteur, Fleur and cœur. (Yes, here a non-rhotic accent helps!)
The reason I'm finding it hard to believe that this is caused by rhoticity alone is because I know how the French pronounce all their Rs and yet use œ, ø and ə. But they stress words so much differently that maybe it's not a fair comparison. My interest is piqued; I'm going to ask some American friends to say "Goebbels" and see what happens! Nick (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
My Webster's says /ˈɡʌbəlz/, /ˈɡɜrbəlz/, or as in German. Both the assimilated pron. sound wrong to me; usually we just try to give it a German pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, /ˈɡʌbəlz/ sounds like a reasonable approximation to me (perhaps also because a traditional approximation of English /ʌ/ in German is, conversely, /œ/, although only /a/ is usual anymore nowadays, which conveniently happens to match the evolution of British English pronunciation), /ˈɡɜrbəlz/ less so because the ö is short, after all.
Funny, in a British accent with [əʊ], I'd simply say "shah-trose" rhyming with rose, i. e. [ʃɑˈtɹəʊz], as that seems the most obvious approximation to me (considering how similar the diphthong often sounds to German [ø], apart from being, well, diphthongal). But then, I lack native speaker intuition. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


It appears that the colour clover given in this article is not even close to the same colour on the Flag of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Which version is correct? Samuell Lift me up or put me down 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That colour has been removed. Keraunos (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentions in popular culture[edit]

Do we really need so many citations of uses of the word "chartreuse" in popular media? I'm for getting rid of all of them. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should get rid of that.--345Kai (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Object These are important and interesting additions to the color article chartreuse. Keraunos (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Could someone please supply a reason why the article on Chartreuse needs this section about all kinds of shades of green, some very far removed from Chartreuse. Olive? Pistachio? Wouldn't it make more sense to put these in the article shades of green?--345Kai (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chartreuse colors are defined as colors which have a color code in which the color code for green is slightly larger than the color code for red (but not too much larger), and with a small color code for blue, producing a yellowish-green color. Chartreuse is one of the 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel, so it is an important color in its own right and should not be confused with green. It is as important a separate color on the color wheel as is orange. Olive, pistachio, apple green, etc. are simply darker shades of chartreuse. Keraunos (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The RGB color wheel is like the unit circle. Each of the 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel is at an angle of 30 degrees from each other on the circle of the color wheel, and chartreuse is one of those 12 major colors. Keraunos (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If this section is going to be included, how about putting some actual examples in the section? The text says that the colors are "displayed at the right", but they're not. All I see are boxes with text color specifications in various systems. Actual illustrations of the colors should be included, or else the text should be changed, since it currently refers to non-existent displays.
Also, at the very beginning of the article are two captioned boxes, one of which says "Chartreuse (web) (Chartreuse Green) (#7FFF00)" and the other of which says "Chartreuse (traditional) (Chartreuse Yellow) (#DFFF00)". Both boxes currently contain black squares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Chartreuse as a Spirit[edit]

In the opening paragraph, it is stated that the color takes its name from the liqueur. It then says that the greenish variety comes from "green chartreuse" and the yellowish hue from "yellow chartreuse." First of all, when speaking of the liqueur, "chartreuse" should be capitalized; it's a proper noun just like Knob Creek or Benedictine or Kahlua. Secondly, the liqueurs themselves are not called "green Chartreuse" nor "yellow Chartreuse." People refer to them this way when speaking, but the sentence is somewhat ambiguous and seems to suggest that the liqueur itself is called "green/yellow chartreuse." Both types are simply "Chartreuse;" there's a green variety, a yellow variety, and then a third super rare limited type.

Also, can we get any verification on the picture of the glass of Chartreuse? I have both the yellow and green varieties and in that particular photograph the liqueur looks awfully murky. Chartreuse, both green and yellow, is perfectly clear. I'm not sure what's in that glass, but I'm doubtful that it is truly Chartreuse. Patrick of J (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

RfD notification[edit]

Many of the redirects to this article, which were mass created on 24 June 2009 by User:Neelix, are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 11#Greenisholives. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chartreuse (color). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)