Talk:light green
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Msh210 in topic light green
Deletion debate
edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
SoP, like the definition says "any green that's light". No help to anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as defined. Another exemplar of the silly results of the "polysemous constituents" rationale for including multi-word entries. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- delete. As Prince George said, "doesn't really mean anything." Ƿidsiþ 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is one of the colors that seems to have a standardized specific referent in computing in both HTML and in X11 (X Window). Perhaps that is worth a specialized definition. Also, Websters 1913 had it and its copiers have it, though Merriam-Webster's lexicographers thought better better of it: it is not in MW3 or MWOnline. 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- See if you like it now.--Pierpao 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- That sense seems possibly keepworthy. Note the formatting and template use, especially
{{&lit}}. Also, I didn't use{{en-noun}}as I don't think that this is much used in the plural in the possibly keepworthy sense, nor would I call it "uncountable" rather than "uncounted". DCDuring TALK 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)- Seems much better now, maybe keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed and, styled i hope!--Pierpao 15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems much better now, maybe keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- That sense seems possibly keepworthy. Note the formatting and template use, especially
- The prescriptive technical sense doesn't meet our CFI unless we find three citations. Certainly the plural is used, or how would we know our light greens from our dark greens. And it's a colour, chiefly defined by its hue, ad not a tone. —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 15:49 z
- I agree re meeting the CFI. And searching google books:"light green" css|html does not show any visible relevant hits among the first 20 hits, though I didn't look very carefully. (A bunch use the phrase to refer to any of a number of similar colors.) Keep and RFV. Of course, if the non-SOP sense fails RFV, the others will go, too.—msh210℠ 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- The prescriptive technical sense doesn't meet our CFI unless we find three citations. Certainly the plural is used, or how would we know our light greens from our dark greens. And it's a colour, chiefly defined by its hue, ad not a tone. —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 15:49 z
[Corrections] “Web colors” is not exactly a system – light green is not an HTML4 colour keyword[1] nor a CSS2 colour keyword,[2] it is the name of an X11 colour.
Its derivative, lightgreen is a color keyword supported by many browsers, and also an SVG color keyword[3] (therefore supported in the latest HTML5 draft[4]), and also in the latest CSS3 draft.[5] —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 16:52 z
- I added X11 and hue. I don't like repetitions, but if you prefer color, feel free to rollback please--Pierpao 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I added X11 and hue. I don't like repetitions, but if you prefer color, feel free to rollback please--Pierpao 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
RfV. Light green can't be defined purely as a hue, since X11 green, for example, has the identical hue, but different saturation (or chroma) and brightness (lightness, or tone). (And boy, some of our colour-related definitions are just confusing and wrong. Added to my long list.) —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 21:17 z
- Delete This is not an English word, it is a translingual keyword from a series of computer standards (X11, SVG, CSS3, HTML5). These are not English; HTML or CSS has the same keywords when written by Albanians and Zimbabweans.
- X11 — My Mac's X11 colours (at /usr/X11/share/X11/rgb.txt) has synonyms light green, LightGreen, and PaleGreen2.
- SVG — only lightgreen is part of the standard.
- CSS3 draft — only lightgreen.
- HTML5 draft — spec refers and links directly to the SVG standard, so only lightgreen.
- We don't include keywords or function names from computer languages (be they procedural, object-oriented, or markup) in the dictionary.
- Regarding the possibility of verifying actual usage of the term: the first two pages of Google Books results for HTML "light green" yielded 15 uses in a computing or web-authoring context. Only 1 used Light Green, in a table of keywords, to refer to this colour,[6] 1 used Light Green in a table possibly to refer to the X11 colour,[7] and 13 various uses mean simply “a green that is light,” amply demonstrated by provided RGB values or HTML colour keywords.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 17:00 z
- I read the bgc hits as you do. Notwithstanding that, we can't exclude the possibility that groups might yield some citations. If, after 30 days, none are found, then yet another approach to having color entries with narrow meanings suitable for illustration with color examples will have failed. As with other classes of encyclopedic content, I'd be happy to let WP sort it out for us for cases like this. But there is a modest specialized scholarly literature on color words ("chromonyms"). So it is not a matter of no lexical interest. Has anyone read up on the subject? It is fairly obvious that "green" as in "green eyes", "green grass", or "green apple" is not the same as "green" as in "green paint" and "light" in "light brown hair" is not the same as in "light green paint". DCDuring TALK 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not having read up on the subject of chromonyms, those differences are not obvious to me, not even fairly obvious. Can you explain them, please?—msh210℠ 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am still wrestling with how to talk about this. For someone more in practice, see this passage, at page 30 in Lexical Semantics (Cruse) for a discussion re "red" as in "red hair". BTW, "chromonym" would be barely attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand how the green in "green paint" is different from the green in "green apple"? Any any color can be made "lighter" by shining more light on it, or "darker" by shining less light on it. Photographers have to deal with that all the time - who's to say how "light" or "dark" the subject really was on a certain day at a certain time in a certain light? Facts707 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am still wrestling with how to talk about this. For someone more in practice, see this passage, at page 30 in Lexical Semantics (Cruse) for a discussion re "red" as in "red hair". BTW, "chromonym" would be barely attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not having read up on the subject of chromonyms, those differences are not obvious to me, not even fairly obvious. Can you explain them, please?—msh210℠ 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I read the bgc hits as you do. Notwithstanding that, we can't exclude the possibility that groups might yield some citations. If, after 30 days, none are found, then yet another approach to having color entries with narrow meanings suitable for illustration with color examples will have failed. As with other classes of encyclopedic content, I'd be happy to let WP sort it out for us for cases like this. But there is a modest specialized scholarly literature on color words ("chromonyms"). So it is not a matter of no lexical interest. Has anyone read up on the subject? It is fairly obvious that "green" as in "green eyes", "green grass", or "green apple" is not the same as "green" as in "green paint" and "light" in "light brown hair" is not the same as in "light green paint". DCDuring TALK 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the possibility of verifying actual usage of the term: the first two pages of Google Books results for HTML "light green" yielded 15 uses in a computing or web-authoring context. Only 1 used Light Green, in a table of keywords, to refer to this colour,[6] 1 used Light Green in a table possibly to refer to the X11 colour,[7] and 13 various uses mean simply “a green that is light,” amply demonstrated by provided RGB values or HTML colour keywords.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 17:00 z
- "Color standard" can give you the peace :)? What do you think?--Pierpao 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Why not "dark green", "light blue", "bright red", etc.? Any use in the computer world belongs in Wikipedia unless it is idiomatic and means something else like "my hard drive just caught on fire"! Facts707 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a problem limited to multi-word color names. All color terms have the same problem: they need ostensive definitions. What specific hue or range of hues should be shown for "red"? (See w:Red and red) In this case, the apparent existence of a "standard" makes it clear what the referent is. If it turns out to be attestable, then it has a definite non-compositional meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is it a good idea to put single-colour swatches on entries like red at all? It's impossible to make an illustration that defines a colour, or even one that defines its range. The best we could do is provide any number of examples of a colour, which may be better left to Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 07:05 z
Deleted by opiaterein. Striking.—msh210℠ 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)