Jump to content

Talk:Green/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Why is green 'Go' / 'Good'?

I came to article wondering why 'green' was selected as the 'go' signal for traffic lights, and more generally as an 'all is good' type status indicator. Can anyone help with a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.223.18 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question- I think the reason given in the article is correct, that green light can't be mistaken for red light at a distance, in night or day. It's the complementary color of red, the most opposite color there can be, and this theory of opposites was widely discussed in the 19th century, when the colors were chosen. Green is also closer to yellow, which makes it more visible. The only alternative would have been blue, which is harder to see at night or even in daylight. But unfortunately I haven't yet found a reference about this. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This can't be correct. You forgot color blind people. And blue light is not hard to see at all. Blue light is very light blue, close to white. Now don't tell white is hard to see. Besides, green is not generally good. In China, it's often the other way round. When a stock rises, it's red because red is considered lucky in China. When a stock falls, it's green. We can't just focus on Western standards. --2.245.111.186 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Topics from 2009

Green Dollar Bill?

In this article, there is an a picture of a dollar bill with a description under it that says that it is green. Obviosly it isn't green, it is black and white. How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.225.95 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The ink on the front is black, the ink on the back is green, and the paper itself is very light green. Since the picture shows the back, it's green and light green. — DanielLC 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

within-sight-of-the-finish-line peer review notes to go here...

Ok, let's see what we can do to get this baby over the line at FAC.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I did wonder whether some more elaboration of germanic vs latin-derived names was worthwhile or just overkill in the Etymology and definitions section. eg names in german vs french/latin etc.
  • Green in astronomy - I know the B stars of Antares and Albireo have been considered green (the latter a highly regarded binary visually), and green is notably lacking in the star colours. Uranus has been described as green but I am not sure of other examples. I will ask the wiki-astronomers...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, weird - woulda thought Wrad woulda known that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I did, but the problem is that they aren't sure if green actually had anything to do with it or if that is just a mistranslation of the name of the disease. Wrad (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
We have some stuff in the science section (uncited) about what might make a person turn green. Wrad (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
We can't just add everything we can think of that is green. That kind of stuff belongs at Green (disambiguation). This page is meant to be a description of what Green might mean and where it comes from. I don't think that the Berets or the Green line belong here. The Green Man might be good, but we already have an explanation of what Celtic culture thinks of Green, so it may be redundant. Wrad (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Some shithoughts after a quick look. --arsehoPhilcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This article reflects a commitment to the thoroughly refuted "wavelength theory of color". All modern experts in the area agree that colors cannot be defined in terms of wavelengths since the present of so-called green wavelengths is neither necessary nor sufficient for the perception of green. Although refuted, the wavelength theory of color remains in circulation mostly by physicists. Physicists have a hard time understanding the psychology of color vision, believing naively that colors are "outside of the head". Modern psychology and neuroscience clearly shows that green is a type of mental/brain state, not a wavelength of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.188.19 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Coverage
Structure

Doesn't convince me, but I need to think about it, probably as things stike me in the individual sections. "Etymology and definitions" is a grab-bag. I've commented below on specifcs, but suggest the section should be dismembered and redistributed. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and definitions
Color vision and colorimetry
  • Needs restructuring. Starting with colour-blindness looks odd. I'd go for: --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wavelength range.
    • Additive & subtractive primary colours.
    • Normal human colour vision and sensitivity.
    • Colour vision defects in humans.
  • Need to explain "additive" & "subtractive" primary colours. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "these are the peak locations of the rod and cone (scotopic and photopic, respectively) luminosity functions" is a waste of space, it's just jargon for what the preceding text explained. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Colour vision in humans should mention blue-green deficiency, the 2nd most common, and that women seem to have better colour vision than men - genuinely, it's not just a fashion thing. Somewhere the article should commnent on our frequent use of red-green colour coding despite the frequency of red-green deficiency - traffic lights, warning / status lights, nav lights of ships & planes. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am personally red-green colorblind and can see traffic lights fine, so there isn't really an issue there. I've never heard of blue-green deficiency, though, so maybe that should be added. It's true women have better color vision, but I'm not sure that's as relevant here as it would be in Color blindness. Wrad (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I sugest you research summmarise colour vision in animals. AFAIK primates are the only mammals w good colour vision, most others have restricted (e.g. cats) or no colour vision. IIRC in some S American monkey species all have a colour vision deficiency (can't remember which species or deficiency) and in some others it's common but not universal. To put mammal colour vision in perspective, IIRC some reptiles have 5 types of cones. How much you say about this depends on how much green figures in the literature on these topics. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In minerals and chemistry
In biology
Western(culture)
Eastern(culture)
  • The use of "Asian" is lazy here - the Indo-Iranians were aso "Asian" but a completely different culture group, speaking Indo-European languages. IIRC the Thais are immigrants from S China, and IIRC Japan got the basis of its language and culture from China (? via Korea) but rapidly diverged because of its isolation. If sources support my recollections, the para should say e.g. "Chinese-influenced cultures". --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What does "In Ancient China, green was the symbol of East and Wood, one of the main five colors" mean? --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Nationality and politics
  • Environmentalism should take its place in chrono sequence, i.e. at the end. If you give the tree-huggers an inch, they'll take the article. I'd also combine the 2 environmental paras. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Re green African flags:
    • "The Pan-African colors are borrowed from the Ethiopian flag, one of the oldest independent African countries. Green in these cases represents the natural richness of Africa" looks like a non sequitur. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd look hard at the cited source ("Chanting down Babylon") and probably try to find others - "Babylon" is a Rastafarian term for Western culture (allusion to captivity of Jews) and does not suggest WP:NPOV. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It's a Rastafarian book, but here's the thing. Pan-African colors are themselves a POV construct created by Africans, and they are widely used throughout Africa. Flags are not out there to express NPOV, they are out there express your country's values in the best light possible. The closest we can get to NPOV on this is to say where the colors came from, and that really is where they came from, as far as I can tell. Wrad (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Green is one of the bottoms of the three bands on the Flag of India. The green stands for fertility and prosperity, though initially before it came into being, it stood for Islam, the second-most predominant religion in India" needs a ref, and "though initially before it came into being" is unclear. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Should mention The Wearing of the Green here. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The right-wing separatist party Lega Nord of Italy introduced a dark-green on white flag as the (unofficial) flag of Padania (Northern Italy), and uses green as as distinctive colour (green pochettes, green ties, green shirts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Military use
  • I'd skip Green Berets, but "Green Line" is commonly used. If the section has no other content, you could merge it into "Nationality and politics"
  • "the Green Line has been a term for demarcation between hostile territories in Cyprus, Israel, and Lebanon" needs a ref, which hopefully will also explain the origins of the term. --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
See, I'd think they were both highly notable, but am happy to go with the flow on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability isn't the issue, applicability is. It doesn't matter how famous they are or how many people know about them. What matters is, Do these things have anything more than a superficial connection to green? Do they add any meaning to the color? Do they add something to our understanding of what the color stands for? Are there sources to back these claims of meaning up? Wrad (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Religion and philosophy

about that part has cited that GOD has worn a green cloth made of silk: its not god but they are good obedients those how succeeded to satisfy allah by thier deeds.therefore they will be awarded to stay in paradise for ever and enjoys the gifts given to them by god. god is greater than being made of matter or having body like what the creatures have or needing a place to live.god has created matter ,place, color and everything that u can imagine even ur mind. hence god is totally different form what have ever imagine. this what shia says.


Images

Iran

"The flag of Hamas,[50] as well as the flag of Iran, is green, symbolizing their Islamist ideology."

The ignorant person who said that should be judged. Iran's flag had the green colour even during the era of our glory when it was our Lion and Sun in the middle of the flag. There was no Islamist ideology in Iran before 1979, the date a minority of Islamists took power by using sneaky strategies. The mentality of the people of Iran is to be pro-American and even pro-Bush : http://www.cfpdusa.org/news.aspx?type=Analysis&id=24 . The people of Iran even support a military action to change their regime !! So don't confuse the colour of our flag with this ugly regime. Thank you and God bless the one who changes the sentence ! (I can't do it ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basiscongo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The cited source, and several others that I checked, indicate that the green stripe honors Islam; this could well have been true before the revolution, too. Give us a source if you have one that says otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Lebanon

Could someone correct the flags map? It's missing Lebanon, which has a green cedar in its flag. Note that it would fall in the category "Other, most commonly to represent either lush national vegetation or heraldry" and not in "Islamic states using green". Eklipse (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

yea it would be in that section since the cedar tree is about natural vegetationIureor (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Green info box looks blue.

The green chosen for the info box looks very blue to me, at least on my calibrated displays. I saw the PDF linked but am wondering why we should use that color for the main sample? To be honest, I still would like to move the color info boxes away from being about a specific color coordinate to being about the abstract color. PaleAqua (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should get *some* kind of reasonable evidence before putting up any kind of hex coordinates or specific colors. A better thing might be to track down a copy of the 1976 book Color Universal Color Language and Dictionary of Names put out by the US National Bureau of Standards, and go by the most saturated in-gamut approximation at the same lightness/hue as whatever they define for each color term. Alternately, we could base the colors chosen on linguistic/anthropological research – there might be something useful on Paul Kay’s page. Instead, I used the CIECAM02 hue angle defined by that standard to be "unique green", along with a somewhat arbitrary lightness (I don't think there’s necessarily any reason to priviledge one lightness or another, but we could have a discussion about that). Either way, #00ff00 and friends cannot be acceptably labeled "green", etc., in my opinion. The sRGB specification is about making a useful color gamut for a high definition television standard, and has pretty much nothing to do with human color names, and the X11 color names were designed for displays with rather different characteristics than sRGB, by computer scientists making things up as they went along. The fact that these names are used on the web does not make them relevant to typical human color definitions. –jacobolus (t) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, whether your display is characterized or not won’t make much difference, because web browsers do no color management of html/css colors; everyone is going to pretty much see a different color, even if all their displays are properly characterized. You need to take a screenshot and apply the sRGB color profile to it, to see what the color looks like in sRGB. –jacobolus (t) 05:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually wasn't looking at the green in the browser but in a colorspace tool set to an sRGB profile, though it looks similarly bluish in my browsers as well. Just like #00FF00 is a bit yellowish to me. I think that the choice of any specific coordinate is wrong and other then giving approximate frequency / wavelength ranges we shouldn't go with any coordinates in the info boxes. I don't see how using the hue angle from CIECAM02 to create RGB coordinates is any better than using X11 colors. I'd rather actually add an entry with the reference 164.25 hue angle etc... PaleAqua (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay; Part of that probably has to do with the quite yellow-green colors shown immediately below influencing the color appearance. Another part could be that there's extreme observer-to-observer variation in choice of "unique green": it’s unique for each person, but each person has his/her own. I'm going to try to write a bit of summary of what research I’ve read about that at unique hues, but it hasn’t happened yet. –jacobolus (t) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever taken a prism and focused a beam of sunlight through it? The color in the green part of the spectrum looks exactly like X11 Green. Also, if you check the color coordinates on the CIE chromaticity diagram on the outer edge just inside the horseshoe shape in the central part of the green part of the spectrum with your computer's digital color meter, you will see that it registers as the color #00FF00. The color you are attempting to foist upon us as "green" is really a medium saturated bluish green similar to the color emerald. Keraunos (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion belongs on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Color, so I’ve moved it there: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Color:. Keraunos (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you copy the discussion back here as well, or revert it? It’s hard for me to follow exactly which bit goes with which if some parts are here and some are there. Feel free to add a disclaimer template pointing people to that page and suggesting they avoid further discussion over here, but in general discussion shouldn't be removed from a talk page. –jacobolus (t) 04:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that some parts are here and other parts there. I copied the whole section from where it says "green info box looks blue" so the part on the color project beginning at section 20 constitutes the whole of the discussion, includin g the part on this page. It simply didn't make sense to leave it here because it had morphed into a discussion about color in general, not just the color green. Keraunos (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, can you remove all the extra section breaks you added to that discussion? It makes it really hard for me to follow –jacobolus (t) 04:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

o mlonger I think the section breaks are necessary because it is such a long discussion that it is hard to follow without the section breaks. If you want to change the titles of the section breaks, feel free to do so; I tried to make them as accurate as possible. Keraunos (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's actually all okay; just temporarily slightly disorienting. –jacobolus (t) 02:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The green info box definitely looks blue or cyan. We could just rename the article so it matches the info box, though. No big deal.  ;-) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately, due to a lack of consensus, we are forced to accept an extremely idiosyncratic infobox green color. I don't consider it to be even the slightest bit close to a pure green, but, unfortunately, some insist on using a color other than green. I am still at a lost to understand why. It might not be so bad if the icon contained at least one color that came even a little bit close to being a pure green, but that is not the case. After having my own opinions being dismissed as being nothing more than idiosyncratic, I am no longer prepared to waste a lot of time on this issue. Good luck if you pursue this matter, because you will definitely need it once people start guestioning your sanity. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Esperanto

I think green is a color which Esperanto language associate itself with. Just look at their flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.90.25.134 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanings of green

Green could stand for the following: -Inexperience -hope -new life -immaturity -mediates between heat and cold and high and low -it is a comforting -refreshing human colour -it is the color of plant life -green with envy These can be use in compositions and essays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningzailin (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your question here? Rcsprinter (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Creeper Extension

I suggest we replace the picture with a face of a Creeper. Just sayin'. 62.197.198.100 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi lost!

Change it, the description must be "the former flag of Libya".--125.25.137.104 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The interwiki link to am.wikipedia.org to this article is 

[[am:አረንጓዴ]]

. The page is protected so I would appreciate if somebody added it. Thanks. regards. --87.217.184.251 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

From the "In Science" section:

{{clear-right}}
{{color swatch|#B05C94|Its complement<br>Munsell {{nobr|2.5RP 5/9}}}}
{{color swatch|#088C56|An example green<br>[[Munsell color system|Munsell]] {{nobr|2.5G 5/9}}}}

I'd like to see these two colors swapped. Putting the complement before the color it's a complement of doesn't really make any sense to me.
Prefered replacement:

{{clear-right}}
{{color swatch|#088C56|An example green<br>[[Munsell color system|Munsell]] {{nobr|2.5G 5/9}}}}
{{color swatch|#B05C94|Its complement<br>Munsell {{nobr|2.5RP 5/9}}}}

81.231.245.214 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Munsell Color Codes Edit Request: August 15 2012

I've checked with Munsell Color Company directly for the most dominant green color code, which seems appropriate to include in the table that appears in the first section of the article. A dominant Munsell Color Code for green is 5G 5/10 [Munsell Color Code 5G 5/10]. Edit would look similar to this:

| Munsell=5G 5/10 | Munsell=Munsell Color Code[1]

References

  1. ^ The Munsell Color System is a mathematical representation of one value code in the spectrum of green hues, based on the research of Albert Munsell, now at the Munsell Color website.

Range of Visible Green Spectrum

Shouldn't this be included? 208.54.39.165 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A spectrographic image (rather than just blocks) would help to do that. 208.54.39.146 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hadith about green is fabricated

The hadith mentioned at the end of the first paragraph under the heading Green in religion of this article is ranked as fabricated (Mawḍūʻ) by some scholars like Al-Suyuti. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Green in the ancient world.

Homer sometimes applies chlôros to things that we would classify as green (e.g. healthy foliage) but at other times to things that we would classify as yellow (e.g. honey). Ref: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/

Delete the list of connotations

The list of connotations is subjective, largely unsourced, and duplicates information better sourced and more complete in other parts of the article. it don't think it's useful.

SiefkinDR (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy in "Science"

There is a discontinuity between the text and the illustration in this section. The text states" "Green is the color you see when you look at light with a wavelength of roughly 520–570 nanometers." However, the chart gives green as 495-570nm.

It's either 520nm or it's 495nm. One of these needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

How big should the lead section be and what should be in it?

Consensus appears to be supportive of the current version. Number 57 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right, the lead of the article has to be substantive - it can't just be a few lines as it was a couple of days ago - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Also sounds really lame just saying it's the colour of grass as an opening line (??????). I've opened this up for discussion here as it looks like there's a difference of opinion....comments invitedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with you. I believe the lead should be concise and have the main points of the article, and it should be sourced, but it doesn't have to include an enormous amount of text, and it has to be clear and understandable to non-experts. Note that the articles on blue, red, yellow, and other colors start as this article did before you edited it; it's the standard definition of the color in the Oxford English dictionary and other sources. You can't put everything into the lead. and nothing should be in the lead which isn't discussed in the appropriate section below, with sources given. I think all the major color articles should follow a similar format, and the leads should be concise and well-sourced. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Those leads are problematic too, and you should mention truncating them was your idea. They just come across as facile and unencyclopedic. But, clearly, our views differ so we will open a request for comment. (see template above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Broadly support current version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)

  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. --78.86.131.23 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Floatsam (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. The shorter version doesn't adequately summarise the article, in my opinion - there are too many things left out. That's not to say that the current lead can't be changed, but it should at least briefly touch on all the main points of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. This one looks and reads much better. Minor suggestions would be combining the sentences/paragraphs associating the colours with various things, similar to the short sentence in the other version, but obviously much more expanded. Not sure about the sentnece saying it is the colour of the flag of Ireland as it contains two other colours in equal ammounts. AIRcorn (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Broadly support short version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)

As it was here.

1. I support the shorter format, as used in the other major color articles since mid-2012, citing the Oxford English Dictionary definition, one sentence on the optics of the color, and the most common associations. The current lead isn't bad, but it puts too much emphasis on the wavelength and the use of green in printing and TV screens, and doesn't mention the role of green in history and art. As far as optics, I think it really only needs to say that green is between yellow and blue on the spectrum. I would suggest leaving out the explanation of the subtractive and additive systems, which are covered in detail in the article. I think it should follow the Wikipedia Manual of style, that "the lead should be in a clear, accessible style, should contain no more than four paragraphs, and be carefully sourced, as appropriate." I think the current lead is pretty close, but still leans a little to heavily on the optics and not enough on the culture, history and associations. Thanks for starting the discussion. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What other culture/history/symbolism items do you think we should have? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, and I’m very impressed by the number and quality of the articles that you’ve edited, particularly in the natural sciences. But I do have some issues with your suggested opening, which I hope you will consider.

-The first sentence, and the whole first paragraph are in technical jargon, not clear to an ordinary reader. it addresses only the optics of the color. The first sentence and paragraph should address more than the wavelength and the complementary colors; the optics section is only a very small part of the article on green. Also, the wavelength can be found in the info box at right. The large majority of the article is not about optics, it’s about the history, uses and cultural associations of the color green.

I don’t think an explanation of what magenta is belongs in the first paragraph of an article on the color green, or that you need to go into great detail about complementary colors; that's better done in the article itself. . Also, I believe the complementary color of green is red; it isn’t just considered to be red.

The second paragraph, about etymology, contradicts the section on that subject below, which doesn’t mention the word “growan.” This sentence needs a citation. The sentence that this word describes both plants and the ocean is confusing; I think the word meant is chloros, the greek word, not growan. This would need to be clarified and need a citation, but it really shouldn’t be in the opening section at all; it’s well covered below in the section on eytmology. The reference to growing grass and leaves is correct; that is the opening definition of the color in the OED.

The statement in the next paragraph that “green is a slang term for money” is questionable, and needs a citation. “Greenback” is the slang term for a dollar, but I have lived all my life in the U.S. and never heard green used as a slang term for money. Also, it says Green is a slang term "for many other things” without saying what they are. This topic of associations and expressions doesn’t belong in the lead of the article; it’s very well covered in the article itself.

The last section of the opening is also very long and lacks citations. All of the information there is found, with citations, in the article below; the article doesn’t require a long and unsourced summary.

As you mention, I did do a large part of the writing and editing of the articles on red, blue, green, yellow, black, white, orange, pink, crimson, brown, gray, and a number of the other colors ; I provided the bibliography and a large part of the citations for these articles, and I tried to provide them with opening sections that were concise, well-sourced, and written so non-specialists could understand them. I hope we can all work together to improve the green article.

(I vote for a shorter opening section, with citations and no technical jargon.) SiefkinDR (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that information on lead and in body of article should align. The way it is generally done is to not have the inline reference in the lead (none of this is wildly controversial, surely) but that there must be one in the body. Yes, I agree the green/money link not a prominent enough fact for the lead. I removed the plants and ocean one too. I think some link that shows that "grow" and "green" have similar roots is good when placed next to the fact that it describes growing things - I have a longer OED so will go check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this the last few days - I agree that leaping into a electromagnetic definition is jarring, so envision flipping the first para but keep the three intro paras as:
  1. definition
  2. green in nature
  3. green in art/culture/symbolism etc.
I will switch first para but defnition needs to come first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

this doesn't work - there is now subject ,material all mixed up - saying it is the colour of grass is not a definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK - ditched the opposite colour bits as not integral to lead. I agree about moving wavelength of spectrum down a bit but can't quite nudge it further with easy flow. See commented out alerts - can you see how all factoids group together nicely and flow?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


  • I do not consider words such as 'spectrum' and 'wavelength' to be technical jargon (I don't work in the field of science - I'm a 'lay person', so as to speak, and consider these words to be part of everyday vocabulary). The old version ("Green is the colour of growing grass...") seems like the kind of definition I would use with a small child. Perhaps it would be useful in https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green . --78.86.131.23 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible photo for inclusion

Towels!

Ooooooo like this color.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, nice. But it needs to "say" something....let me think...looks like it's a Joisey thing.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a smile forming between the towels, like they're about to say something, the towels lifting up, probably a profound utterance about the Towel of Being.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the new lead paragraph

There are problems with this new lead paragraph, similar to the problems in the new lead paragraph of the article on blue by the same editor. It's much too long, too technical, and includes much information which belongs in the article below. it doesn't accurately reflect the contents of the article. It needs to more concise, with less jargon, and should summarize what's below, not try to say everything. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) The only technical bit is in the opening segment about different colour systems. I can't think of a simpler way to say that without losing precision. Open to ideas. Regarding the lead size, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and look at any article of similar size. The lead will be this big or maybe a tiny bit smaller. The vote we had last year should highlight this. I agree there are alot of cultural thnigs and maybe one or two of them could go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Compared with other color articles (see red, black, white, yellow) this lead is much longer, and has a lot of information which really belongs in the body of the article. Also, I think that, like the other color articles, it should start with the most common occurrences of the color, and not with a technical description of the wavelength; that should be the second sentence, as it is in the other color articles. The lead doesn't have to repeat everything that's in the article. I'm sure we can come up with a lead that gives the main points without being so long. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
Comparing it with "growing grass, leaves and emeralds" sounds puerile - we aren't writing for am 8-year old - and is not necessarily correct as the first two of those things are quite often not green.
Identify specifically what can be left out of lead - not the first para as that is all defining info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What is Green?

The section: In Science: Color vision and colorimetry appears to include some original research on exactly what the color Green is.

It appears to be based on the author's undocumented hypothesis that 550nm is Yellow-Green rather than Green. If this hypothesis is true, it needs to be documented because it has always been my understanding that 550nm was Green and that the paint pigments what we think of as Green were not pure colors.

Tyrerj (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The color "red" is not linked in this article, but "blue" and "yellow" are. Could someone standardize this by linking the first instance of "red" (or deleting the other links)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.102.247 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

Please replace the sentence in the second paragraph "By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert sunlight into energy" by "By far the largest contributor to green in nature is chlorophyll, the chemical by which plants photosynthesize and convert light energy sunlight into chemical energy" The reason is sunlight is already energy, so it is confusing to speak about sunlight and energy as two different things. What happens when a photon is absorbed by chlorophyll is that light energy is captured in an excited electron. This is still reversible and can be emitted as light (fluorescence), but when the energy of the captured photon arrives to the reaction center of a photosystem II, this energy is converted into chemical energy in the form of a highly reduced molecule (Pheophytin in the case of higher plants). Xaranda (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Altamel (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

Please correct the following sentence in section 2.4 Biology "Chlorophyll absorbs the long wavelengths (red) and short wavelengths (blue) of the light, but the green light is reflected, making the grass and leaves appear green" I fact chlorophyll does absorb light, but not as efficiently as blue or red light, so reflected light (which, by the way, also contains blue and red as absorption is not 100% in sunlight) is enriched in green, which makes leaves look green. A most accurate description would be: "Chlorophyll absorbs the long wavelengths (red) and short wavelengths (blue) of the light very efficiently, but the green light not absorbed as efficiently, so reflected light is enriched in green, making the grass and leaves appear green" Xaranda (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done: To be precise, you are correct. And Wikipedia should be precise. Altamel (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Examples of how different shades of green can be made should be stated. For example while painting you can create several different shades of green depending if you use more yellow or more blue in the paint mixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenstar97 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green. 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}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2016

under the picture of the Saudi flag, it says "Mohammad is his prophet." Its spelled "Muhammad" Muhammad.wingate (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed it. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Already done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

78.101.177.152 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC) green is nature

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Green Roofs

Green Roofs

A green roof is a term for a roof of a building that contains a specialized garden on top of it. Typically green roofs contain native plant species that naturally thrive in the geographical location of the building. Green roofs are increasing in popularity, pioneering a new vision for future agriculture within urban developments. Landscape architects are pushing to popularize this type of design, as both the owner of the building and the surrounding environment benefits from these structures.

Notable Green Roofs

  • California Academy of Sciences

San Francisco, CA

  • New York Museum of Modern Art

New York City, NY

  • Washington Mutual Center

Seattle, WA

  • Rooftop Haven for Urban Agriculture

Chicago, IL

CMYK

Where is it's CMYK equivalence ?188.158.108.165 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


I would suggest to add the CMYK equivalent as well. It does not matter, that this will be an arbitrary setup, as all programs do it a little different.

Inkscape offers C/M/Y/K to be 100/0/100/0.

Many of the other wiki articles about colors include a CMYK representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.173.130 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

The lead doesn't yet meet the requirements of the Manual of Style. The opening sentence gives only the wavelength and the place on the spectrum of light. That works for a textbook on optics but not for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't explain why it's an important color in history, nature and culture. It should at least mention the most prominent occurrences in nature or culture. Also it should have a citation, or it will be re-written endlessly by others. That's my experience with color articles over the last six years. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The first para isn't a summary of the lead. Material should be organised into related sentences so the lead flows and items should not be repeated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

anu mehta 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.slideshare.net/AnuMehta9/world-environment-day-2018

File:World-Environment-Day-5-June.jpg
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RGB

The green swab at the top of the article shows green to have a rgb of (0,255,0) which is actually known as lime green. This green is a lighter, slightly yellowish green. The web color green actually has an rgb of (0,128,0) so I will be bold and change it to that because all of the primary and secondary color articles have their web color displayed as their article color. I do not mind if it gets reverted. LightPirate (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: N–Z contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

  • Pastel green
  • Poker Green
  • Vine Green

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn deleted the § In nature and culture section and SiefkinDR reverted the deletion. I agree with Aircorn's edit, but I'd like to discuss this rather than just un-reverting. My concern with this section is that its purpose and relation to the rest of the article is not coherent. The section title is "In nature and culture", but there are many sections below ('Biology', 'In history and art', 'Symbolism and associations') that deal with nature and culture directly. The hatnote to "Shades of green" suggests a different theme. That one kind of fits with the image captions, but it would need to be supported by text. And I'm not sure what you would even say in a "Shades of green" section. "The English language has lots of terms for varying shades of green, such as X, Y, and Z. See also: Shades of green"? Seems like a pretty flimsy section. See also WP:GALLERY for a policy view on gallery sections: A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. I fail to see what aspects of greenness that this section illustrates which can't be described by text. Colin M (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: Since I haven't received a response from SiefkinDR (or anyone else who wants to argue for keeping the section), I'm going to go ahead and revert back to Aircorn's version. But still happy to discuss this. Colin M (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019

Sorry for delayed response. All the color articles have this section, whose purpose is to summarize visually the principal occurences and variants of the topic. A very large part of the article is devoted to the culture, history and most common occurences oF the color, and the most common variants, but those sections have been pushed down by the long and often very technical discussions of optics. its much clearer and quicker to use pictures in an introductory gallery to show the main shades and most common uses discussed below. If any topic needs and benefits from a lot of pictures it's a color. please restore the gallery. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say remove - it is repetitive - there are sections below it that deal in both nature (biology etc.) and culture (history, Symbolism and associations etc.) so it is superfluous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the same educational value in this section that you seem to. To me, it just seems like a fairly arbitrary collection of examples of green objects. If you think the sections dealing with nature and culture have been pushed too far down, that could be an argument for, say, rearranging the order of sections, or splitting a long section into a separate article. Also, I should point out that, even without this gallery section, the article is very well illustrated with images (including a nice collage of green things in the infobox at the top of the article). Colin M (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I looked atsome other colour articles and they have the same type of section, but are headed "Shades of XXXX" and giving a level 1 header. That is slightly better context wise and I actually don't have a problem with a section on different shades. I feel there are issues with how they are presented though. Red just repeats many images in the infobox and has no prose outside image captions. It is basically this section with a better header. Blue is slightly better. It at least has some prose. I still think the gallery is overkill, but a couple of pictures mixed with some prose would be acceptable. I like the spectrum at the top and think a cropped and focused version of that would be a better image than a bunch of images. I haven't looked at any other colours yet. AIRcorn (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Why no HSV in the color coordinates section of the infobox?

I came here precisely to learn the hue angle of green but this information is missing from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A317:2241:7A00:55DC:81A7:9207:B925 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"008800" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 008800 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § 008800 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

EngVar

Why are we flipping from American (how this has been for years) to British English? MOS:RETAIN is pretty clear that we shouldn't be doing this. It notes that When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary, and this variety has been consistent for a good number of years. I see no consensus to flip this to British English at this point, given that it's been consistently American English and has not caused problems. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

RETAIN is also pretty clear that

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.

...which is exactly the case here. I doubt we could ask the IP that changed it a while ago for the explanation, but it will surely not be bad to conform to policy and change it to the original variety. Summer talk 19:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This article has been stable for a decade. The point of MOS:RETAIN is that when an article is stable in a particular usage, it's fine and should not be flipped. I see no MOS:TIES reason that Green is more associated with the United Kingdom than any other English-speaking country, and I don't think the fact that there was inconsistent usage of "color" vs "colour" prior to that point motivates us flipping the EngVar now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The point of RETAIN is not to flip between varieties when we have the original variety, which indeed was British English. Why do we have to flip now when this could have not even been an issue by just reverting the initial violation? Or no one really cared, like in case with the notoriously long lasting violation that turned out to actually take the community consensus with it and remain? Summer talk 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The manual of style point only asks us to go back to the first non-stub version only when no English variety has been established, but we have an established variety here—American English. Regardless if people from the early 2000s used "color" or "colour" inconsistently, the Amercian English version has become well-established with time ({{Use American English}} has been there for about a decade, and use of EngVar in the article prior was somewhat inconsistent depending on who's writing it). You are free to open up an WP:RFC if you disagree with the fact that we use "color" for green, but I would encourage you not to as it would use a good bit of editor time for something that doesn't actually impact the value of the article to our readers (the point of that guidance from the MoS is to avoid people using time flipping varieties back-and-forth and engaging in extended discussions on this topic). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green/Archive_4&oldid=1214824721"