Talk:color

color/colour redirection
Is it on purpose that colour is a redirect of this page and that all the information is found here? I don't think this is NPOV. Anything against copying most of this information to colour and cross-link both pages? D.D. 10:38 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

TRhey should be seperate. Besides i am shore that color and colour are wods in other languages. -fonzy

From a pratical point of view, they should be redirects. I mean, color and colour are exactly the same words. There shouldn't be any difference in their articles outside of the spelling. I guess it is somewhat of a problem of having an international dictionary that there will be more then one way to spell the same word and all will be equally valid. --Eean 23:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From a practical point of view, there is plenty of disc space. Color and colour are not the same words; I can SEE the difference. They are of equal value so they deserve equal attention. If one is to be a redirect of the other, how do you state what the correct spellings are other than by giving them equal attention and which one is chosen as the redirect, having to choose for me it can only be the English spelling as the American is a derivative. If it is necessary to indicate what spelling the word is, on several wiktionaries the template and  are used to indicate two correct ways of spelling English. Thanks, GerardM 07:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't disk space, its people having to make a change to both pages if they want to make an improvement. As a programmer, it annoys me, since not using copy and paste is what much of programming is about. As it is, colour has the translations. What about Appendix:Colours. Thats kind of showing favoritism isn't it? Something thats apparently very bad. Perhaps the template system could be used (there could be a Template:ColorColour with all the content below "alternate spelling") or some improvement to MediaWiki made. Or easiest we just merge the little differences, flip a coin and redirect one of them to another. --Eean 00:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * After some consideration and trials with other words, I think the best solution is to move the main content to color colour (spellings in alphabetical order), note spelling and dialect variations there, and redirect both color and colour there. I ran up a test of this in User:dmh/color and thereabouts.  This also solves the issue with Spanish color, by making User:dmh/color a disambiguation page, while User:dmh/colour is a straight redirect.  It looks pretty good to me, and I believe I mentioned it in the Beer Parlo(u)r a while back, but I don't recall any response.  At this point I'd say anyone who wants to second the motion should do so by making the analogous changes to the main entries :-).  That is:


 * color as a disambiguation page for color colour and color(non-English)
 * colour as a redirect to color colour
 * color(non-English) to hold the Spanish (and whatever other language) entries
 * color colour to hold the currently duplicated content


 * Have at it! -dmh 05:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, but could we make the page name "color, colour" or "color/colour" otherwise it looks like a page for a phrase "color colour". &mdash; Paul G 16:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a better delimiter than space. Slash (stroke) is overloaded already, but comma would work.  I'm not sure what characters are allowed here.  Another possibility would be a rarer special characer, perhaps '$', as color$colour.  We can continue work until this is decided and move pages later, but it occurs to me there will be a lot of work to do to get all the derived terms sorted.  They'll all need dual entries, so the main work is in getting everything named and redirected properly.  It would have been the same amount of work starting from scratch, but since we're not starting from scratch, there is quite a bit of dirt to be moved. -dmh 17:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think Color, Colour would be good. As far as derived terms, the problem is I'm sure not all of them are used both places. So we can't make assumptions. I guess we can just google or nexis 'em to see whether the other spelling is actually used. --Eean 17:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * the Color, Colour option is a very good idea, therefore everyone is happy. -- 203.164.184.20 00:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think so to, but if you ever try to redirect color and colour to Color%2C_colour, a nameless Japanese user will revert it. --Eean 02:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

British spelling

 * I ask, how can a tag of British or UK be applied to something used by pretty well every English speaking nation apart from the US? --Amedeofelix 09:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Colour is not UK only, but all English speaking worls apart only from US. --Amedeofelix 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion on my page. --Amedeo 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it’s used somewhere besides UK, just add those places. For example,, , , , or whatever the case may be. But you cannot simply remove , because that makes it appear as though colour is an accepted spelling in the U.S. In the U.S., we write color, and we use -or for almost all of the Gallic -our words. By the same token, we spell -ize with a zee, not an ess; and we spell -er words with -er, not -re (meter, liter, theater). If you want to put a note on these AmE pages that -our, -ise, and -re are used elsewhere, you have to specify where. —Stephen 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said elsewhere, my objection is that it makes US English appear to be "normal" and the original to be abnormal. The UK is not above doing things wrong - the use of -ise is actually rather silly as it should be -ize for all words except those of direct French origin.  I simply think it more logical to have English, and where words and spellings crop up that are unique to a region then and only then should they be labelled as UK, Australian, etc. (UK even, but I think only for "modern" words & colloquialisms) - how would it make people think a word is in use in the US after all if US words were all labelled as such?  That's my take on things anyhow. --Amedeo 08:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, U.S. English IS normal. By indicating where the alternative colour is used, we are not saying it’s abnormal in those places, but that it’s normal in those places...but among those who write color, that is, Americans, colour is definitely abnormal. Your suggested edit, removing the and  from the color page, makes it seem as though colour is an acceptable alternative for use in the U.S. It is not. Our 300,000,000 write it color, and we only resort to colour when we’re pretending to be French (as at a French restaurant). Otherwise, colour is a misspelling among us. Under color, the spelling colour is given as an alternative form in  and wherever else you would like to list explicitly. Under colour, the spelling color is given as an alternative form in the . As I said, this is our established method. —Stephen 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What? The spelling "colour" is unique, regionally.  You are conflating so many things in your argument, it is hard to pinpoint all the flaws.  This is not en-uk.wiktionary.org.  The "normal" spelling of the word is tagged "US" just as this is tagged with its region.  If we were concerned with appearances, we'd correctly mark "colour" as a spelling error.  Instead, as an international, multilingual dictionary, we are trying to maintain a NPOV.  --Connel MacKenzie 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have editing rights, are Admin, and yet you make "have a go" responses like this? Where is YOUR objectivity?  You care to back up your assertions in terms of this "error" statement?  Are you trying to say it was originally spelled color and got changed in one country only, in this case the United Kingdom, to colour? That sure is what your statement above looks like.  My position is neutral in that I think the ORIGINAL version is the normal one in all events no matter where it was coined, and that any variant should be labelled in such a way as to where that variant originated and/or is on current use. How does that not make sense? I simply think there should be an ORIGINAL and VARIANT bias.  The fact that would happen to mean that in most cases the English version, as opposed to the American English ect., is considered normal, or to be more precise "original", is purely a matter of natural coincidence.  that you chose to see my point of view as UK biased is entirely of your own making. --Amedeo 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not allow the "original/variant bias" that you have in mind. Any spelling that is normal in the U.S. carries exactly the same weight as a different spelling that is normal in the UK or NZ, regardless of which came first or which is truer to etymology or any other reason. The ONLY case where we have an "original" bias is that whenever an editor writes a definition or example, and uses spelling that would be different in other English-speaking countries, his original spelling is the one that is allowed to stand, and those from other areas are not to "correct" the spelling to their own variety. If a word is used that is misunderstood by people from different countries, such as British pavement (American sidewalk), then a parenthetic comment should be added to make it understandable to everybody. For Americans, pavement is the asphalt surface of a highway and is intended for automobile traffic, not pedestrians. But for little differences such as color/colour, the original editor selects the spelling. This is assuming, of course, that only Commonwealth writers will be writing definitions and examples on the colour page, and only Americans will be writing definitions and examples on the color page. It wouldn’t make much sense to use colour when defining color. —Stephen 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon? Who is we, and why do these people making up this we disallow anything? Is this site open or closed? Also what's the point of this whole site if it's up to the writer of an entry and nobody else?  If it isn't open to change it seems rather pointless.  You miss my point entirely with your pavement/sidewalk talk - you're also wrong by the way on the meaning of pavement to an American, it refers to any paving materials be it on the road surface or sidewalk. --Amedeo 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The regular, long-time contributors here. We discuss policies such as this in the Beer Parlor and cast our votes. This site is open, but it is not anarchy. We have rules and policies that have been discussed and developed over the years, and new editors must respect them. As for my pavement/sidewalk talk, I didn’t miss your point, you apparently missed mine. And as to the meaning of pavement to an American, I am American. To us, paving materials are not called pavement, and nothing about sidewalks is called pavement. As to the pointlessness of leaving something up to the writer and nobody else, you’ve apparently misunderstood and missed my entire point. In any case, understood or not, agreed or not, you cannot remove the geographic references from colour on the color page, but you can add new ones if you are sure that colour is used in other English-speaking countries besides GB. —Stephen 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mister I am American too. I post this not to be used in an entry, but to settle the point on the pavement issue:
 * Mister, that is not what you claimed in your earlier discussions! The e-mail you sent me originated from GB.  As does your IP address (which, for some odd coincidence, appears on many blacklists.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha!!! Will someone point out to this person the fact that someone need not stay where they were born and raised - i.e. an American may indeed reside in the UK.  Sheesh... --Amedeo 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Main Entry:	pave·ment
 * Pronunciation:	'pAv-m&nt
 * Function:	noun
 * Etymology:	Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin pavimentum, from pavire
 * 1 : a paved surface: as a : the artificially covered surface of a public thoroughfare b chiefly British : SIDEWALK
 * 2 : the material with which something is paved
 * 3 : something that suggests a pavement (as in flatness, hardness, and extent of surface)


 * Taken from a very American Dictionary Merriam-Webster . Not just British for pavement, AND not just road paving but any paved surface just as I said. --Amedeo 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am tired of arguing with you. You cannot remove the geographic references. I have explained why. If you don’t understand or don’t like it, I can’t help you any further. I don’t speak Australian or any other kind of English except American. If you think it’s Australian, add Australian, but don’t leave it blank. If you wish to continue arguing, you will have to argue with yourself. —Stephen 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know how to achieve that end? Don't post.  If you do post post some reasoning at least - there is none of taht in this pst of yours. All I have been given for the most part, and you post here is avery good example of it, is "You can't do X, Y or Z, and that is that!"  With no reason why.  Some have since posted with reasons why various practices are the way they are here, and that's very good and I respect those replies and have respected the reasoning given for not removing tags - I have not removed any tags since having it explained to me.  However does that negate my ability to dissent - to disagree with either the listings as they are or even the very policy that blocks editing by removing tags?  No it does not - we arehere to talk about what we think a wors is, means, where it comes from, how it should be listed and evry little thing about this place.  Yet I still get people like you who virually say I should just keep my opinions to myself.  Why? --Amedeo 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a bit frightening that some US contributors think that 'colour' is a 'British' spelling (whatever that means). Color is simply a variant, every other English speaker from Ireland to India and from Nigeria to New Zealand spells it 'colour'. Its not 'British' or 'Commonwealth', its English.  There is no such thing as "British English".  Color is a perfectly reasonable variant based on the trend by Webster to 'rationalize' English spellings, but it is the variant.  Listing the countries where its spelled with a 'u' is silly, because there is only one country where it is not. PrivateWiddle 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of those whose first language is English spell it color and not colour. For us, color is the standard and colour is the variant. For us, the non-U.S. variant is generally unacceptable in most situations, and the British spelling is only rarely used when we want to create certain special effects. —Stephen 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian (or any other than US & UK) spelling
Here's pretty decent proof that it's colour in Australia Stephen. ;-) --Amedeo 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Still baffled as to why this eliceted an angry response above. You seemed to question my reasoning - I provided some proof to back it up, and you fly off the handle... --Amedeo 15:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that it’s colour everywhere in the Commonwealth, including Australia, NZ, India, and probably Canada. But most people (over 300,000,000) who speak English as a first language are in the U.S., where we write color. There was nothing at all angry in the above response...any anger you sense originates in your own reading of it. I don’t fly off the handle. You can provide all the proof you like about British English, which is a dialect that I don’t speak and am not interested in. It if fine with me if 100% of the Commonwealth writes colour. The only English I know about is American English, and we write color. —Stephen 02:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Internecine wars of colo(u)r
As a non-Anglo I don't want to further inflame this infighting, but I do have a historic question. Of course I learned 'colour' in school, but was told in the US that 'color' is actually the older spelling and got changed into colour in the British empire after the colonial rebellion against the lawful rule of HM king George. (III that is not Bush). Any comments? Jcwf 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can read up on it at American and British English spelling differences. —Stephen 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

JCWF i was told the same thing in school. I am Australian (and for the record its spelt Colour here). However i find no reference to it on the web link Stephen has provided. --Skytalk 05:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not look very hard. See American and British English spelling differences. The very first "e.g." is colour. —Stephen 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Various links

 * Beer parlour archive/July-September 04
 * Beer parlour archive/March 06
 * Spelling variants in entry names
 * Wiktionary talk:Spelling variants in entry names
 * Wiktionary talk:Spelling Variants in Entry Names - Draft Policy/BP April 2006
 * Beer parlour archive/April-June 05
 * Beer parlour archive/June 06
 * Project - Keeping Translations Common and Synchronised Across Different Spellings
 * Wiktionary talk:Project - Keeping Translations Common and Synchronised Across Different Spellings

Omitting user talk pages (Connel MacKenzie, Davilla, Dmh, Eclecticology, Hippietrail, Ncik, Patrik Stridvall, Paul G, Richardb, Scs, Silence, Vildricianus, Widsith) and grease pit (later) archives, for now. Anyone bored enough can add more links to relevant discussion pages.

--Connel MacKenzie 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tea room 2008 discussion
What word(s) was or were used in Old English for the concept of colour before the Romance word was imported? It seems that Dutch also has a romance word for this concept. Did both languages formerly have cognates of farb/farg? Are there any cognates remaining in more obscure English or Dutch words? &mdash; hippietrail 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bosworth-Toller gives hiw, heow, hiow, heō. This does seem to be related to ModE hue. (Wiktionary gives hīew for this etymology. Dunno the source of that spelling.) —Leftmostcat 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OED gives most of the above forms (including "hiew"), which are indeed the origins of modern "hue". It also notes that hue and colour were treated as identical through the 16th century, so this looks to be the answer we're looking for.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

after edit conflict:
 * Are hue and dye dead ends? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were three main words for ‘colour’ in OE: ( > hue),  ( > blee), and  ( > dye).  Ƿidsiþ 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

grey/gray
Even though the pages color & colour are synchronised, can there be an exeption on changing 'grey' to 'gray' on the image for the page color? Tony6ty4ur (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems logical, especially as the American spelling "gray" is used later in the "color" article. I've made the change.    D b f  i  r  s   12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ngram viewer data
Google's Ngram Viewer suggests it was in 1890 that color finally overtook colour as the more common form of the word (it's been more common ever since). It was also in the period from 1890 to 1907 that favor overtook favour, and it was in 1884 that flavor overtook flavour. Realize and organize, on the other hand, overtook realise and organise much earlier. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

change color, change colour
Chambers 1908 includes this phrase, defined as "to turn pale" and "to blush" (i.e. of the human face; though of course the phrase also has wider applicability). Equinox ◑ 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible derived terms, from Chambers 1908
I've changed colour to color throughout this list, since that seems to be our primary entry at the moment. (Ha, primary!) Some of these phrases suggest there might be a general meaning of colors that is one's faction or affiliation. Compare.


 * desert one's colors, to abandon one's post or duty
 * fight under false colors, to put forward a false pretence as a cover for one's actions
 * give color, to give plausibility
 * hang out false colors, to put up another's flag, to pretend to belong to another party than one really does
 * lose color, to lose one's good looks
 * show one's colors, to show what are one's inclinations, opinions, or character
 * stick to one's colors, to adhere to one's party or opinions
 * under color of, under the pretext of
 * without color, without disguise: colorless: without individuality

Equinox ◑ 00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2020
Noun senses 4 and 5 presently read:


 * 4. Richness of expression; detail or flavour that is likely to generate interest or enjoyment.
 * There is a great deal of colour in his writing.
 * 5. In corporate finance, details on sales, profit margins, or other financial figures, especially while reviewing quarterly results when an officer of a company is speaking to investment analysts.
 * 5. In corporate finance, details on sales, profit margins, or other financial figures, especially while reviewing quarterly results when an officer of a company is speaking to investment analysts.

Request verification that sense 5 exists as a specific finance term, and is not merely an application of a wider sense, maybe something along the lines of sense 4. (Another editor has previously added a comment to the source asking "surely this is not so specific?") Mihia (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the HTML comment in diff while grouping or merging some senses, and indeed suspect the definition given is greatly over-specific. It may mean "details" in a way distinct from sense 4, or more likely it may be best to simply revise sense 4 a bit, but I'm sure it's never contrastively specific to details on profit margins given while reviewing quarterly results. - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

three-color (adjective): printing with yellow, magenta, and cyan
three-color : using, produced by, or relating to a color printing process in which the print is produced by superimposing separate plates for the colors yellow, magenta, and cyan Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Misleading corpora
"colour is about 1.7 times more common than color in the British corpus.[1] Since 1980, color gained significantly on colour in the British corpus" --That's just because NGrams isn't very good at distinguishing British and American English. Since 1980, it's become common for US novels to be published unaltered for the UK market. But in actual use by actual British people, "colour" is overwhelmingly dominant, a lot more than 1.7 times.