Talk:White/Archive 2

achromatic results from reflecting equally
Currently we have this:
 * White is the lightest color and is achromatic (having no hue), because it fully reflects and scatters all the visible wavelengths of light;  it is the color of fresh snow, chalk or milk, and is the opposite of black.

How about changing it to something like this? This would keep each "characteristic" with its "cause": "lightest" with "completely" and "achromatic" with "equally", as explained in the section "White objects". Also this splits off the last part as a separate sentence for readability:
 * White is the lightest color, completely reflecting and scattering light.   It is an achromatic color (having no hue), reflecting all the visible wavelengths equally. It is the color of fresh snow, chalk or milk, and is the opposite of black.

QuoJar (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC
Okay let's open this up then. Which items in the lead of white need an inline citation? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For background, an editor has added multiple citations of dictionary definitions of the adjective "white", in the middle of 1st sentence, & deleted uncontroversial phrases (& citations) that help to define the color white, on the basis that "this is not a technical article" but rather is or should be "primarily about the culture and history and symbolism". QuoJar (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC) [edit] QuoJar (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * none as none of the points in the lead are in the least controversial, and many are mundane. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * none, especially not tertiary dictionary definitions of the word "white"  (BTW, if it happens to be decided that any inline citations are needed in the lead, I suggest putting them all at the ends of paragraphs so they don't break up the flow.) QuoJar (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Each of paragraphs in the lead needs a citation, since their content has been disputed this past week, and text has been deleted, changed and rewritten multiple times without any citations given.  One paragraph, listing the most important cultural associations, which was fully footnoted, was simply deleted by one of the editors above,  without any explanation. That paragraph needs to be restored, with citation.  This article should match the leads of the other color articles in style and format, and we need to follow the Manual of Style.  Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The bit about symbolism in architecture: ie the end of the second paragraph. This could easily be taken as an opinion, and therefore removed. Most people who have walked down a reasonably modern street will recognise it to be true, but even so, some sort of reference should be provided. I would possibly look to explain the colour white makes them simplistic/modern, but that is not by any means a necessity. – Sb  2001  18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Black is the opposite of white
We have the assertion in the opening sentence that black is the opposite of white. I know that this is the common sense understanding, but in an encyclopaedia we need a little more precision. In neither wave theory, nor optics, nor the biology of human sight can a colour be described as the opposite of another. Would it not be better expressed as "Black is colloquially regarded as the opposite of white" ?  Velella  Velella Talk 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * With all respect, this change is not necessary and not useful.  This is not an article only about optics, though of course that's included.   The Oxford English Dictionary and other sources describe it as "the opposite of black", and the largest part of the article is not about optics, but about the symbolism and cultural uses of white.    There's no reason to make it more complicated than it is. It should go back to the way it was. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all change, unfortunately, is an improvement
An editor has recently edited all the galleries, with the unfortunate result of reducing the images in size so that they're too small to see without enlarging each picture, particularly on the screen of an I-pad or Mac Book. This makes the galleries, which are as important as the text in this article, practically useless,  and also results in a large amount of empty space  in each gallery. I hope that the editor, who had very good intentions, will reconsider this decision. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that. The number and size of gallery images was problematic - way too many. I cut a bunch (commons is over yonder) and reduced the sizes to default. The images are quite visible and a simple click takes you to the image page where you can view in full splendor. Or set your image size preference - I assume that works for gallery images as well (haven't checked though). The page still has an excess of images - more trimming needed. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I respect very much the work you've done on Wikipedia (as well as your military service- we're from the same generation) but I don't agree with you about this article.  I think right now it looks tacky, and not at all like the other color articles.

I don't know any way to have a good article about a subject like a color without galleries of multiple images which you can see easily without clicking, so you can compare them. Right now there's too much wasted space. If the images are put to the side, they're soon bumping into the other sections. This looks now like an article from ancient Wikipedia, before they discovered good graphics layout. We can better than this. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list
An entry in List of colors: G–M contained a link to this page.

The entry is :


 * Milk

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

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)  20:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

short description
Your edit "Achromatic colur which is fully refllective of visible light" makes little sense and contains typographical errors. White is not about reflection or reflectivity. It is about the perceived visual effect or sensation that results from a mixture of wavelengths that approximates that of natural sunlight. White light can be produced directly by a halogen lamp or a white LED or an electronic flash. Plant surfer 20:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , The standard for typographical errors is to fix them, not to revert the edit.
 * If you have a better short description, then change the existing one to what you percieve as better. That is standard Wikipedia practice too.
 * The short description I added was based on the lead paragraph. If I have misinterpreted the meaning of the lead sentence, please correct the short description to comply, and if the lead paragraph is incorrect, then fix that too.
 * All articles should have a short description. The background may be found at Short description. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weisse tara mongolian art.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
White is not a colour it is a shade like black isnt a colour its a shade 1.129.104.132 (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Useless redirect
FFFFFF is a redirect to this page. Get rid of it. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? That's this colour's hex code. Nekomancer Jaidyn  ( talk ) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Help
I created a redirect to this page called Wite. I’ve realized this shouldnt be. Thank you, User:WikiJanitorPerson ☎️/🍌 21:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See Template:Db-author for how to request "speedy deletion" of the page. You can add to the top of the page. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Take the Money and Run
diff I get why Take the Money and Run is somewhat relevant to this article, being blank white canvases, but I'm not sure it is relevant enough for mention in "See also". I don't have a pony in this race; here is a place for discussion, if you like. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021 (2)
please add Wikipedia to things that are white 206.125.154.13 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)