Talk:Green/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Topics from 2007

Irish Flag

I think the statement about the green in the Irish flag being derived from shamrock is untrue. See this link to the FOTW website [1]. There's no mention of it on that site. If no dissenters, I'll remove the statement in a couple of days. Arcturus 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of that, but would love to know where the association of green with Ireland comes from. Care to work together finding out why as opposed to deleting without replacing? --sony-youthtalk 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the statement is probably untrue. I imagine that green is associated with Ireland because we get lots of rain, so the grass is very green and there is rather a lot of it. List of country nicknames gives: "The Emerald Isle - from the lush green of the Irish landscape". Grass is certainly a lot more common than shamrocks. Martin 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this website gives a definitive answer [2]. Sony-youth - agreed. Can anyone find out anything else? If so, add it here and I'll edit the article accordingly. Arcturus 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The green in the Irish flag represents the mainly Catholic 26 republican counties of Ireland, the orange represents the other 6 mainly Protestant counties in Northern Ireland. Over the years a lot of conflict has occured between the two major religions of the country and so the white represents the anticipated peace. laura murphy (<email removed for your protection>), 18.41, 12 april 2007

I have removed this information, because more detail on the flag of Ireland more properly belongs in Flag of Ireland. Also, it is unsourced. Notinasnaid 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Green-eyed monster

Why is jealousy associated with the color green? Drutt 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Shakespeare -

Used to be (and still is sometimes) yellow-eyed monster, until Shakespeare's Othello:[3]
IAGO (Act iii., Sc. 3 lines 189-91): O, beware, my lord, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock The meat it feeds on.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Image

I see that the main image of this article (the very first one) is that of a mossy-green fountain in Austria.

Now, even though this image shows something green, I think that there could be some other better image to serve as cover image for this article. Here are my suggestions for other images to replace the current one as cover image:

Tom@sBat 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I´ve changed my mind... The image of that green fountain looks good; I had thought that there was a "color" infobox for green in general, but as their isn´t one on this article, the imagewould not look very well alone. I´ll investigate a bit on the possibility of an infobox "color" for all of green in general and then I´ll see about its image... Tom@sBat 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see thet the gradient image has been removed... So, no main infobox image at all? TomasBat 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion before, but I was struck by how unattractive that image was, and noted the other color infoboxes don't have an image (at least, Red, the first and only one I checked); so I took it out. It's better this way. Dicklyon 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok; no problem. Thanks for being bold. TomasBat 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Organizing Green Information

This article is difficult to read. If we want it to be a good article, we will need to organize it more. I'll add some headings and order to it, see how it goes.

Good idea. You should also feel free to throw out any unsourced factoids, since sources have long been called for and don't seem to be forthcoming. Be bold. Dicklyon 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please get rid of that weasel word "considered" that seems to be creeping its way through Wikipedia like a virus ?! Its fine when tiptoeing round a sensitive topic which is legitimately a matter of opinion, but it is becoming plastered (OK, I've now mixed my metaphors) across toomany articles (It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you !!!) (Chris Jones - not signed in)

No, it's never fine. Just delete any such items; anyone who wants them back will have to come with a source. Dicklyon 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

needed sections for a "good article"

In my opinion, this article still needs decent sections about green in art and art history, about green in color science, and a descriptive section about green pigments and industrial production of green things (instead of just a list of pigments), and maybe a section about how the green light used in CRTs/LCDs is produced and how green is mixed from cyan and yellow inks in printers. Does anyone know of good sources that might detail the history of the use of green in painting? --jacobolus (t) 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. My strengths lie with culture, etymology, and history, so I can handle those things. Science is definitely not my forte, though. So far all we have about art is the picture of the green devil, but I'll find more, and I'll make sure all the culture stuff is cited, as well. Wrad 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

variations of green

I don't think it's a good idea to give each color name ("kelly green", "islamic green", etc.) its own article; they are unlikely to ever be more than stubs. What we should do instead is make a separate article called something like "Named variations of green", and consolidate them all there, also including "olive green", "bright green", "office green", "hunter green", "emerald green", etc. etc. --jacobolus (t) 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a concrete example, all the factoids from emerald (color) are already included in this article ("green"), so it contains no unique useful content whatsoever (except a color triplet taken from a video game forum—what a source!), and should be merged into a larger article or deleted. --jacobolus (t) 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea either, but I like it better than putting them up so prominently on this page. Why have the obscure "Kelly Green" and not turquoise or teal? This is a violation of WP:Undue weight. If we have one shade, we need them all. I personally think that the template at the bottom is sufficient. As for the articles I created. I could care less if they were deleted. I just didn't want them here. Merge them into an article, but not this one. Wrad 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps page for "minor shade of green" (though with a better title than that) would be a better solution. I think that a lot of the articles should be merged but agree that it probably shouldn't be into the green article itself. PaleAqua 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

info in the infobox

This article covers many different shades of green, not just #00ff00. I'm trying to find a source that will outline the ranges of green on the hex scale, but no luck so far. Anyhow, I think that the infobox should outline ranges, not one specific shade, at least for these main articles. Any idea where this kind of information can be found. Wrad 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you'll find any such sources; there are no agreed boundaries for "green", but there are sets of named colors with specific standard RGB values, such as the X11 set. That's what's generally found in the info boxes, which show a specific named color, what it looks like, and where the numbers come from; at least, that's what I thought they were for. The article of course covers a broader range than just the named RGB color. Dicklyon 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So if we really want to be accurate, what do we do? Eyeball it? Give a rough estimate? Wrad 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
slices through L*a*b* space showing colors in sRGB which could be called "orange"
Nah, I think the best thing to do is show some hue slices through L*a*b* or a similar space, and clearly state "these slices of all colors of the sRGB gamut at x°, y°, and z° hue in the L*a*b* space". Something like this image to the right, except with greens instead of oranges. The other thing we can do is present information about the unique hue "green", and show the brightest color we can of that hue. Using X11 or similar colors is pretty misleading to readers, I think, as they're the arbitrary choices of some computer scientists who didn't necessarily have any color background. --jacobolus (t) 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
On the ohter hand, named sets like X11 colors are likely to be the only ones for which RGB numbers can be reliably sourced. Whatever info we present, it should be sourced. Dicklyon 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If all these hexes and RGBs are so unverifiable, I don't think they should be in our infoboxes. I would suggest revamping them to reflect what we can source. Possibly parameters for what wavelength range they encompass, X11 ranges, a picture, and a short list of what the color most often symbolizes (I can source this). Wrad 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The ones that are unsourceable shouldn't be there. The X11 colors and some other sets are important standards that need to be represented, though not necessarily in the individual color articles. Dicklyon 03:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
X11 colors can be sourced, but they're essentially arbitrary, and don't share any particularly useful information with the reader (in the color articles; they're useful in the context of an article about X11 colors, or web colors, or whatever). Research results about unique hues however have some scientific value. (and if we can get L*a*b* or xyY values, we can do a perfectly valid conversion from that to sRGB) --jacobolus (t) 06:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are just four unique hues: red, yellow, green, and blue. And no particular reason to believe that these have a unique relationship to a particular monochromatic wavelength. In an RGB system, it is easy say what they are, just by name correspondence and the red+green=yellow rule; so that's easy. But is it worth anything? The X11 colors, on the other hand, and other such RGB sets, even if not uniquely specified colorimetrically are some standardized names that widely used by the prominent medium of our day, the inter-web-highway-thing. In the case of "green" and the others, I'm pretty sure the X11 spec will agree with the brightest unique hue: [0, 255, 0], #00FF00, etc. Dicklyon 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Science ref for human eye's sensitivity to green

Here is a good ref for this . I'm not too confident in my ability to summarize the relevant points, though. Wrad 04:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging spring green into article on green

Object--spring green is at 150 degrees on the HSV color wheel and green is at 120 degrees. They are separate and distinct colors as different as red and orange or as orange and yellow (those colors are also 30 degress from each other). Spring green is a very important color because it is one of the 12 basic colors of the HSV color wheel at 30 degree intervals from each other (the 12 colors are: red,orange,yellow, chartreuse, green, spring green, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, and rose), and therefore spring green should remain in its own article since it is one of the 12 colors and is therefore a color of notable significance in its own right. There are also HSL Color Charts for calculating rough ballpark figures for the hsv (hsl) values for any color. The charts are halfway down the website. There are 12 charts, one for each of the 12 colors: W3C TR CSS3 Color Module, HTML4 color keywords HSL Color Charts: Keraunos 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow here. Who are you objecting to? Is someone trying to merge these? Wrad 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand. What do we need to do that we're not already doing? I don't see anything here about spring green. Wrad 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Jacobolus wanted to merge spring green into green. It is posted at the beginning of the article on spring green. I think this is an extremely bad idea because spring green is one of the 12 basic HSV color wheel colors at 30 degree intervals from each other (all other colors are made from a combination of these 12 colors with each other or with white or black) and therefore spring green deserves an article in it own right. Keraunos 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the article on green is so long there is no room for any more colors. Keraunos

OK. Wrad 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting theory. I'm unable to find any web page or book that mentions the name "spring green" anywhere near the number 150. Hundreds of pages mention "twelve hues", but none of those mention "spring green" What source are you using for this statement that spring green is one of 12 fundamental colors or hues? I realize that the X11 color named SpringGreen is at 00FF7F, which is very nearly 150 degrees, but is that fundamental to the name or the color, or just a peculiarity of the X11 set of colors? Dicklyon 06:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
When the X11 web colors, which are based on the HSV color wheel were invented in the mid 1990s, spring green was defined as the name of the color at 150 degrees. Keraunos 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keraunos, just as an aside, could you not mark brand new discussion comments as "minor edits"? Thanks. :) --jacobolus (t) 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone add a section about green's relation to computers?

Green and computing is a well-established relationship in popular culture. Text on old-fashioned computers being a glowing green colour has long been the stereotype in fiction and the media; I guess that idea comes from the early Commodore systems, like the TRS 80's. Anyway, the relationship between the colour and computing is clear to anyone who's seen the Matrix movies, where copious amounts of green were used in a huge number of scenes to remind the viewers how the series was about a virtual computer reality. I'm also pretty sure scenes in movies at night with a character at a computer usually have the room bathed in green. I don't really have the expertise to write about the subject, but if anyone can think of a more accurate and eloquent description of the correlation and could add something to the article, that would be much appreciated. VolatileChemical 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about that as well. I've run across some research that suggests that moviemakers have taken advantage of green's connection with nature in order to twist it and place the color in unnatural situations, giving it that "false naturalism" we find in movies like Frankenstein and The Matrix. Still working on it though... Wrad 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Green-and-black computer terminals are certainly older than Commodore machines. But while we're at it, what about oscilloscopes? --jacobolus (t) 06:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also just as an aside the TRS-80 was from Tandy not Commodore. Green did have a bit of history with computers. I remember all the green bar tractor-feed paper when using teletypes (dating myself). A lot of the terminals such as the ones from Wyse, DEC (VT-52, VT-100) and Tektronix (4014) used green monochrome monitors. Green is also a common color of circuit boards. PaleAqua 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's all interesting, but we can't really do anything with it until we can show that it is somehow important to the color. I'm going to delve deeper and see if I can find a symbolic association with technology. We also may want to find out why all these things are green. Was it a random choice or is there some sanity behind it? Wrad 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking everywhere, and I can't seem to find any significant meaning behind any of this. I personally think green is strongly associated with technology, but without a ref to support it, we can't add it to the article :( Wrad 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I imagine it was a mixture of chance and limits of technology. My thought on the displays is that color CRT were expensive, monochrome was cheaper, green was a color that could be readily made by just coating a tub with P1 Phosphors and made targeting the electron gun simpler. I'm not sure why the solder masks used on circuit boards tend to be green. As for the green bar paper there were other colors available though green was the most common. Again I don't know if there was a reason for this or if it was an arbitrary choice that held because of economies of scale or was because green was perceived to be the color of technology. Not sure there is enough sources/proof to actually add any of this. PaleAqua 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can go two ways, like the chicken and egg question: Which came first, the color association or the design choice? If enough things associated with computers are green for a long enough time, people are going to start making that association themselves, whether the design choice was intentional or not. Wrad 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whew! It's actually pretty well referenced now!

How about that! I'm sure I'll have a bit more research to do in the lower sections, but it sure does feel good to have things verified. Wrad (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

another infobox?

Why was another infobox added? Last I knew, we seemed to have agreed not to list shades, and were debating the worth of an infobox altogether. Wrad 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. But if it is there, it should be accurate about what the color is. --jacobolus (t) 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I need my memory refreshed. It seemed as though the only truly accurate thing on the infobox now was X11 and wavelength parameters, is that right? But even those were only roughly correct since everyone has a different opinion about where green stops and other colors begin. I'd like to experiment with a "Symoblism" parameter. I'm not sure if it would work, but I know that I could source it.
Vagueness is just something we'll have to deal with when it comes to colors, in my opinion. I'm not really opposed to vague facts in the infobox, as long as they're sourced and relevant. Colors aren't really concrete things that be pinned down anyway. I just don't want it to get out of hand. Wrad 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mostly agreed, though I wonder about RGB/HSV coordinates in general being in the opening box for colors such as green at least as far as they imply they are the value. A symbolism parameter sounds interesting but it would have to be vague as well or handle with differences between cultures. It would seem to me it would either have to be free form and often have multiple lines or there would need to be multiple fields, say eastern symbolism, liturgical symbolism western symbolism, etc... PaleAqua 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want anything like that second option. That's far too complex and specific. Even Eastern cultures aren't that different. Free form may be better. How about: "Commonly represents: sickness, health, growth, hope, nature, youth, Islam, and envy". I believe that covers the most common meanings in all cultures. More specific or odd meanings can be found in the article. Basically, we want broad meanings, and meanings that cover a wide area, not localized meanings. In China, for example, green is associated with East, but that is too localized of a meaning to be in the infobox. Also, Green often stands for agriculture, but the broader term "nature" covers that meaning along with others well enough. Wrad 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, especially with the "Commonly..." bit. I was sort of having this apprehension of seeing mile long infoboxes with everyone adding niche symbols. PaleAqua 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, yeah. That would be a problem. Wrad 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Spectral coordinates
Wavelength 520–570 nm
Frequency ??? THz
Common connotations
sickness, health, growth, hope, nature, youth, Islam, and envy
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet #008000
sRGBB  (rgb) (0, 128, 0)
CMYKH   (c, m, y, k) (Not, possible, in, CMYK)
HSV       (h, s, v) (120°, 100%, 50%)
Source HTML/CSS[1]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)
H: Normalized to [0–100] (hundred)
Tea and crumpets added a commonly represents field to the infobox, and then I redid it a bit so that the header was optional and that spectral colors split off. See a sample to the right. I left the picture out in the sample to save vertical space in the talk page. PaleAqua 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the second info box because the only authoritative source we have for color numbers, the HTML/X11 specs, show green as 008000 and lime as 00FF00; both are important prototypical greens, in my opinion, one for the name and one for the value. I'd be OK doing it some other way, but since I just had reverted someone changing to an unsourced definition, this was intended to forestall such changes. Dicklyon 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep ourselves limited to one infobox, personally. Two just seems cluttered. Wrad 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wrad. Having two in the lead looks very disorganized. --BorgQueen 06:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a beautiful piece of work, but it still needs work in one section with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Changed b (MoS):
    Please convert the section on Pigments from list to prose, and it will be awesome! This is the only section which does not stand well as to why it is notable for the article as it is presented.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Changed the rating to pass following improvements
    Good luck improving the article

Popped into a few other articles on various colors - red, black, white, yellow. This article is so very, very well written in comparison. Thank you for the wonderful work! SriMesh | talk 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. We'll see if we can flesh it out and/or combine it with the science section. Wrad 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! State what a pigment is, why these particular pigments in the listing are used in relation to green - paint mixtures whatever. The lead paragraph was so excellent, - the principles of WP lead were all used very well - , soit was so so nice to see. Contact me when you are done changes, and I will take the GAN off hold and into pass!  :-)

SriMesh | talk 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pigment info has been added to the minerals section since the two are so related. Wrad (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As the updates are completed, I have passed this article into Good article status! Good job on this article, it is very comprehensive about the colour green, as well as well written. SriMesh | talk 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Food Colorings

Should something be done with this list? Chlorophyll is mentioned now in the new prose in the minerals section. Quinoline Yellow, a limish yellow, also known as E104 and FD&C Yellow No 10 seems to be baned in many places recently, especially with concerns on the effects of hyperactivity in children. Green S, E142 also seems to be prohibited in many countries apparently for similar reasons as E104. PaleAqua (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Growth needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Quinoline Yellow as well Randomblue (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess someone fixed Quinolene. I don't really want to disambig growth, the disamib link is about the best link there is among the options we have. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is talking about "growth" in general, not specifically "cell growth" or anything else. As for Quinoline Yellow, nobody fixed it, because there is nothing to fix. It is the right article. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that did confuse me. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)