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.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
Material from Chartreuse (color) was split to Shades of chartreuse on 7 February 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Chartreuse (color).
Text and/or other creative content from Chartreuse (color) was copied or moved into Shades of chartreuse on 12 August 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do you guys think qualifies as a shade of chartreuse? Personally, I would just add all colors between 75° and 105° in hue. My mindset of chartreuse is that its a vague name for global classification, in the same way that blue or orange is. But apparently, certain colors, despite being between 75° and 105° in hue, are not shades of chartreuse, so is there another factor I'm not considering?
Here are some examples. These are all directly related to chartreuse, characterized by a hue of 90°. Their difference is their lightness of 90, 70, 50, 30, and 10, respectively:
Here are some others, with some deviation from the 90°. These colors are a little strayed from the 90° angle, but are still within the 75° and 105° area, and thus are more closely related to chartreuse than yellow or green:
So, what are your stances on chartreuse? ThunderBrine (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think your attempts to classify colors based on slicing the color wheel into angles is pure OR and utterly neglects both the cultural and biological aspects of color. First, colors are named by humans, and names are not consistent across languages and cultures, so you're already engaging in a fools errand that is a waste of time and counterintuitive to the vast majority of readers. But also you're utterly ignoring that the wavelength sensitivity of come cells in human eyes is not uniform and consistent across all three cone types. Red cones are significantly more sensitive that blue cones. Plus it ignores the wave properties of light and how resonance plays a part in color perception. You know, something as fundamental as the difference between spectral violet and purple. In short, you really don't know what you're talking about and are trying to impose a false categorical order that doesn't actually exist. Stop. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This page is missing one of the most notable shades, "Fluorescent Yellow Green" as defined in eg. ANSI 107 and used for hi-viz apparel and signage. Unfortunately I’m not finding any definitions of this color online, perhaps someone can review the standard documents in a library collection? Walkersam (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
.png){kind=small}
Color coordinates
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Laurel green and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Laurel green until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)