Talk:Mahogany (color)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
Standard mahogany color
[edit]I found various possible definitions at [1] which appears to be about embroidery thread:
| Mahogany-VY LT | 255 190 164 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Mahogony-LT | 221 109 91 |
|
| Mahogany-MD | 209 102 84 |
|
| Mahogany-DK | 157 60 39 |
|
| Mahogany-VY DK | 143 57 38 |
|
Oddly enough none of them are displaying in my browser :-(
I found another one here, and corrected my bad syntax for the template:
| Mahogany | 192 64 0 |
|
|---|
--Phil | Talk 16:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
To whoever sees the above question, here is the response:
If you mix a color with white, it is called a tint. If you mix a color with black, it is called a shade. Among the colors above, the tints of the color are on top and the shades are towards the bottom. All of the articles red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and violet have the variant that is neither a tint nor a shade, and so I say this article should follow the same rule. Any objections?? Georgia guy 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No objections, but I can't figure out which one you are saying we should use :-) I'm assuming that last stand-alone, which seems more to do with the actual colour as opposed to various types of thread. --Phil | Talk 07:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
This article was moved to "colour" back in December, but the body of the text was not adapted. I moved it back to U.S. spelling since the article was originally written in that variation. Instead of changing the spelling in the article, which I would have done had the article not been originally written in an accepted variant, I just moved it back. --Stomme (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the original move was improper and that moving it back was the correct action. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)