![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
These describe the same color attribute, and "lightness" is the term which is coming to be used in modern models like CIELAB and CIECAM. The value article should be merged into this one, and then redirected here. -- jacobolus (t) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Value is an extremely relevant term in drawing and painting, and it shows no signs of falling into disuse. I believe "lightness" has more industrial connotations, whereas "value" still applies to the fine arts. -bornon5, 31 October 2007 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bornon5 (
talk •
contribs)
02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Any objection to the merge? Dicklyon ( talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.103.220 ( talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merger. However, HSV should be mentioned as an unusual case, as colors don't progress from black to white. SharkD ( talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add caption text to the first image (ColorValue.jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.137.250 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"Various color models have an explicit term which places the color on a scale from utter black to pure white. The HSV color model and Munsell color model have an explicit value, while the HSL color model uses a related parameter called lightness instead."
The "explicit value" of HSV refers to something different; i.e. the value/color is not "on a scale from utter black to pure white." The HSL parameter lightness is the one that's closer to the Munsell system.
"In the HSV and Munsell color models, a color with a low value is nearly black, while one with a high value is the pure color."
This is not true of the Munsell system. HSV is the oddball here. It also contradicts the first sentence I quoted.
As for the rest of the article, it was in need of cleanup (forming paragraphs out of loose sentences, etc.) You were right in that I deleted a good bulk of stuff on accident. SharkD ( talk) 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the rescaling of the second image is ugly; it's hardly legible. This is a software issue however. SharkD ( talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tone (disambiguation page) links to Lightness (color), but the article never uses the word "tone", and I don't think they're at all synonymous. Anyone care to clear it up? — Pengo 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I came here to learn about 'value' from the fine arts perspective.
The first section is hilariously wordy and inaccessible. "... is a representation of variation in the perception of a color or color space's brightness. It is one of the color appearance parameters of any color appearance model."
Would it be that absurd to just say: "It's how bright a color is."
Then, the rest of the article is just gibberish to someone, such as myself, from a fine arts background, and offers nothing of substance as to how value relates to or is used in the fine arts. This article is horrible and should be rewritten by someone who isn't copy pasting from a science textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.156.179 ( talk) 22:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
For the expert, I presume the article has much to say. For the laymen, as with so many Wikipedia articles, it is all but valueless. Perhaps that is the intent, though I would hope not. I appreciate the need for experts to express full concepts, and that they do so voluntarily is admirable. It would be even more admirable if the expert would then create a complementary article understandable by those not in the field. One does this, primarily, by avoiding undefined terms. Use the words and concepts understood by the audience and build from there, defining as one goes. Examples and illustrations in this context are very helpful. Education is not the spewing of words. It is the transmission and duplication, at receipt, of concepts. One hopes, despite evidence to the contrary, that this is the goal of Wikipedia contributors.
The reference [1] ( Brightness vs. Lightness) is to a YouTube video that describes what a guy believes that the Photoshop settings of brightness and lightness mean.
It's ridiculous, there are already several accepted discording definitions of lightness and brightness in the various fields, we really missed the photoshop one.
It discredits the whole articles of Lightness and Brightness, those who originally wrote them have no idea about these things and managed to add confusion to an area that was already fill with confusion to the brim.
(BTW I'm not really an expert, don't ask me to fix it; maybe until a real expert comes the best thing would be to delete these articles altogether)
Gabrolf ( talk) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"Lightness means brightness of an area judged relative to the brightness of a similarly illuminated area that appears to be white or highly transmitting. Lightness should not be confused with brightness.[1]" Lightness means brightness [but] should not be confused with brightness. That's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitchygoomy ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this paragraph. It seems to suggest that grey cards are commonly calibrated at 18.42% but I'm not sure that's true, or even possible. At the very least, I've found a data sheet for a Kodak grey card and it considers a tolerance of 1% ‘very tight’; the figures it gives for the front and back are 18% and 90% and the calibration graphs show that the actual reflectance is somewhat wavelength-dependent.
Furthermore, this section is about work done in the seventies. But the first mention I could find of a grey card in the photographic sense is from 1939 (Curtis) and of a standardised one from 1940 (Neutralowe). Possibly an article from 1938 (Haskell) might also count, but I feel he's using the card in a different way and it doesn't fully qualify. The first ‘modern’ middle grey was published in 1915 (Munsell) although arguably the concept was much older, e.g. Mayer 1758. Point is, even though it makes sense to introduce these terms in an article about lightness, it makes no sense to introduce them in this particular section.
I think in standard terminology this isn't true, or at best only true for colour appearance models that don't account for the difference.
Looking at figure 15 in Priest, Gibson & McNicholas 1920 where V² is plotted against Y with a MgCO₃ reference with a reflectivity of 0.983, it's clear that Munsell's greys are dead on a straight line through the origin. The authors offer the hypothesis that Munsell may have thought he was setting aperture areas on his photometer whereas in actuality he was setting aperture diameters, although they say the possibility that the quadratic relationship was intentional cannot be discounted because Munsell wouldn't have liked the look of a linear relationship. I personally feel that his wouldn't explain Munsell's wording in his atlas though.
A key takeaway in either case is that Munsell's greys weren't visually judged, but determined using a photometer.
Studying figure 15 some more, the intersection of the trend line with the right vertical axis catches our eye. For V=10 we find Y=95.2% compared to the MgCO₃ reference, or only 93.6% of the reflectivity of an ideal reflector! This is only slightly lighter than the 90% white reference on a Kodak grey card, but it's clear from Munsell's text that V=10 was supposed to be the unachievable ideal reflector. Munsell must have made a calculation or calibration error of some sort.
For the bit of the article that I quoted and the material below it this has the implication that, at least in the 1915 edition there was a difference between how the V scale should have been versus how it actually was in published form, which then means that the calculation shown is wrong. Same applies to the formula below, which is I think based on a (reasonable) reading of the abstract of the source but not its actual findings. Checking the recommendations section at the end of the source it may well have been an aspirational thing, because the authors recommend setting V=10 as an absolute maximum in a future edition.
The snippet from the article could, if read the wrong way, also imply that Y needs to be corrected in the way described, or at least can be corrected that way, in all the cases listed below, and that MgO is the standard reference white in the models listed. I know this wasn't intended, but a reader in a hurry might not catch that. So I guess we should just check all the sources. In the case of a physical reference white with a known reflectivity it's even possible that it's been compensated for already, like is often done in photography with the 90% reference I mentioned above.
From the Munsell article: ‘The original embodiment of the system (the 1905 Atlas) had some deficiencies as a physical representation of the theoretical system. These were improved significantly in the 1929 Munsell Book of Color and through an extensive series of experiments carried out by the Optical Society of America in the 1940s resulting in the notations (sample definitions) for the modern Munsell Book of Color.’ I think that's unnecessarily vague and seems to downplay the severity of the issue. It could also do with some inline citations.
FTA: Neither option turned out to be quite correct; scientists eventually converged on a roughly cube-root curve, consistent with the Stevens's power law for brightness perception, reflecting the fact that lightness is proportional to the number of nerve impulses per nerve fiber per unit time.[Hunt 1957]
There are a couple of problems with this part. First, scientists didn't in the end converge on a cube-root curve. I'm not bickering here about the fact that the underlying function probably isn't really a power function but more something based on Michaelis–Menten kinetics, after all the article says ‘roughly’, but about the fact that the stated gamma isn't the current value, which is context dependent but (according CIECAM02, which is isn't quite the most current but close, and a back of the envelope computation) in the range of about 1.6 (light) to 2.1 (dark). I think the root cause that the discrepancy is so large, rather than just being a bit off due to intervening advancement of understanding, is that Hunt is talking about brightness, not lightness, which has (again, according to CIECAM02) double the gamma, so about 3.1 to 4.1.
There's also a problem of chronology. Now, I know the impersonal writing style is de rigeur in much of academia and I myself was taught to write this way, but it's usually a terrible idea and Hunt 1957 is good example where it can appear especially disingenuous. Reading that article, phrases like ‘in a paper published’ and ‘it was concluded that’ made me think initially that the findings were those of others, perhaps even crystallised ideas generally held in the field. But checking the references it's clear it's actually talking about a previous paper by Hunt himself, published in 1953. So the article basically says ‘Hopkinson's 1956 results support my model’; reading Hopkinson's reply leaves me with the impression that Hopkinson wasn't so sure. Either way, Hunt's work isn't based on Stevens's, it couldn't have been because Hunt's work predated it by four years and Hopkinson's work by half a year.
And apparently the opposite wasn't true either. The fact that Hunt 1957 and Stevens 1957 were published in the same month appears to be a coincidence. Stevens takes his brightness data from work done by Hanes in 1949. (Which probably should be mentioned in the article. Even though Hanes's work was about brightness rather than lightness it's still relevant.)
And the clumsy way the snippet from the article was phrased makes it seem like there is some direct causal connection between a perception following Stevens's law and the proportionality to nerve impulses. As far as I can tell this isn't true; Stevens's law is purely empirical. The connection between actual chemical and physical processes and sensations is currently thought to be the Michaelis–Menten model. Which also means that although Steven's work may have historical significance and should hence be mentioned in the chronology, it doesn't directly relate to current understanding and its mention in this snippet is out of place.
Now, since I've mentioned CIECAM02, I feel obliged to say that the article discusses its technicalities and the basic model, but there are still a number of parameters which need to be fitted to fix the lightness scale. What I'm saying here is that even if the model is correct, it must still be fitted to good data to get the right parameters so that the resulting whole describes human colour vision. The article should explicitly cite the studies that provided the data underlying the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
FTA:
I'll discuss these in order.
So yeah, the article jumps backwards and forwards in time and gets causality wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 01:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
In 1996 Hård, Sivik & Tonnquist published experimental results that are relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
FTA: Munsell, Sloan, and Godlove launch a study
When you say ‘launch a study’ you implant an image in the reader's mind of about a hundred participants, government funding and oversight, that kind of thing. But the study that their formula was based on was just them and a couple of employees saying how many brightness differences they just about noticed between reflectance steps. They didn't show if that would be a good measure for brightness, I don't know if they were biased, I don't even know if they were lying or even if Munsell, Sloan & Godlove reported truthfully on the findings.
The second study they did had fourteen participants, some of them outsiders, and they essentially confirmed Munsell's original parabolic curve. To within experimental error, I'd say. Which of course doesn't mean the curve ultimately is a mathematical parabola, the underlying connection might be – in fact, is – different, just that whatever curve it is, the data that was available is very well approximated by it.
The only reason we need to mention them at all is because they ultimately managed to influence CIELAB. And how did that happen!? I'm used to people adding stuff to Wikipedia not having actually read the references they cite, but how did the CIE not catch on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 15:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Alexander Munsell's name is used once without telling us who this is - - -
"1933
Alexander Munsell, Louise Sloan, and Isaac Godlove launch a study..."
Is this a relative of Albert Munsell or an error that is meant to be Albert? There's no Wikipedia listing for this person other than this article.
Thank you for your attention, Wordreader ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Tone (color) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Tone (color) until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
These describe the same color attribute, and "lightness" is the term which is coming to be used in modern models like CIELAB and CIECAM. The value article should be merged into this one, and then redirected here. -- jacobolus (t) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Value is an extremely relevant term in drawing and painting, and it shows no signs of falling into disuse. I believe "lightness" has more industrial connotations, whereas "value" still applies to the fine arts. -bornon5, 31 October 2007 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bornon5 (
talk •
contribs)
02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Any objection to the merge? Dicklyon ( talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.103.220 ( talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merger. However, HSV should be mentioned as an unusual case, as colors don't progress from black to white. SharkD ( talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add caption text to the first image (ColorValue.jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.137.250 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"Various color models have an explicit term which places the color on a scale from utter black to pure white. The HSV color model and Munsell color model have an explicit value, while the HSL color model uses a related parameter called lightness instead."
The "explicit value" of HSV refers to something different; i.e. the value/color is not "on a scale from utter black to pure white." The HSL parameter lightness is the one that's closer to the Munsell system.
"In the HSV and Munsell color models, a color with a low value is nearly black, while one with a high value is the pure color."
This is not true of the Munsell system. HSV is the oddball here. It also contradicts the first sentence I quoted.
As for the rest of the article, it was in need of cleanup (forming paragraphs out of loose sentences, etc.) You were right in that I deleted a good bulk of stuff on accident. SharkD ( talk) 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the rescaling of the second image is ugly; it's hardly legible. This is a software issue however. SharkD ( talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tone (disambiguation page) links to Lightness (color), but the article never uses the word "tone", and I don't think they're at all synonymous. Anyone care to clear it up? — Pengo 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I came here to learn about 'value' from the fine arts perspective.
The first section is hilariously wordy and inaccessible. "... is a representation of variation in the perception of a color or color space's brightness. It is one of the color appearance parameters of any color appearance model."
Would it be that absurd to just say: "It's how bright a color is."
Then, the rest of the article is just gibberish to someone, such as myself, from a fine arts background, and offers nothing of substance as to how value relates to or is used in the fine arts. This article is horrible and should be rewritten by someone who isn't copy pasting from a science textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.156.179 ( talk) 22:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
For the expert, I presume the article has much to say. For the laymen, as with so many Wikipedia articles, it is all but valueless. Perhaps that is the intent, though I would hope not. I appreciate the need for experts to express full concepts, and that they do so voluntarily is admirable. It would be even more admirable if the expert would then create a complementary article understandable by those not in the field. One does this, primarily, by avoiding undefined terms. Use the words and concepts understood by the audience and build from there, defining as one goes. Examples and illustrations in this context are very helpful. Education is not the spewing of words. It is the transmission and duplication, at receipt, of concepts. One hopes, despite evidence to the contrary, that this is the goal of Wikipedia contributors.
The reference [1] ( Brightness vs. Lightness) is to a YouTube video that describes what a guy believes that the Photoshop settings of brightness and lightness mean.
It's ridiculous, there are already several accepted discording definitions of lightness and brightness in the various fields, we really missed the photoshop one.
It discredits the whole articles of Lightness and Brightness, those who originally wrote them have no idea about these things and managed to add confusion to an area that was already fill with confusion to the brim.
(BTW I'm not really an expert, don't ask me to fix it; maybe until a real expert comes the best thing would be to delete these articles altogether)
Gabrolf ( talk) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"Lightness means brightness of an area judged relative to the brightness of a similarly illuminated area that appears to be white or highly transmitting. Lightness should not be confused with brightness.[1]" Lightness means brightness [but] should not be confused with brightness. That's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitchygoomy ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this paragraph. It seems to suggest that grey cards are commonly calibrated at 18.42% but I'm not sure that's true, or even possible. At the very least, I've found a data sheet for a Kodak grey card and it considers a tolerance of 1% ‘very tight’; the figures it gives for the front and back are 18% and 90% and the calibration graphs show that the actual reflectance is somewhat wavelength-dependent.
Furthermore, this section is about work done in the seventies. But the first mention I could find of a grey card in the photographic sense is from 1939 (Curtis) and of a standardised one from 1940 (Neutralowe). Possibly an article from 1938 (Haskell) might also count, but I feel he's using the card in a different way and it doesn't fully qualify. The first ‘modern’ middle grey was published in 1915 (Munsell) although arguably the concept was much older, e.g. Mayer 1758. Point is, even though it makes sense to introduce these terms in an article about lightness, it makes no sense to introduce them in this particular section.
I think in standard terminology this isn't true, or at best only true for colour appearance models that don't account for the difference.
Looking at figure 15 in Priest, Gibson & McNicholas 1920 where V² is plotted against Y with a MgCO₃ reference with a reflectivity of 0.983, it's clear that Munsell's greys are dead on a straight line through the origin. The authors offer the hypothesis that Munsell may have thought he was setting aperture areas on his photometer whereas in actuality he was setting aperture diameters, although they say the possibility that the quadratic relationship was intentional cannot be discounted because Munsell wouldn't have liked the look of a linear relationship. I personally feel that his wouldn't explain Munsell's wording in his atlas though.
A key takeaway in either case is that Munsell's greys weren't visually judged, but determined using a photometer.
Studying figure 15 some more, the intersection of the trend line with the right vertical axis catches our eye. For V=10 we find Y=95.2% compared to the MgCO₃ reference, or only 93.6% of the reflectivity of an ideal reflector! This is only slightly lighter than the 90% white reference on a Kodak grey card, but it's clear from Munsell's text that V=10 was supposed to be the unachievable ideal reflector. Munsell must have made a calculation or calibration error of some sort.
For the bit of the article that I quoted and the material below it this has the implication that, at least in the 1915 edition there was a difference between how the V scale should have been versus how it actually was in published form, which then means that the calculation shown is wrong. Same applies to the formula below, which is I think based on a (reasonable) reading of the abstract of the source but not its actual findings. Checking the recommendations section at the end of the source it may well have been an aspirational thing, because the authors recommend setting V=10 as an absolute maximum in a future edition.
The snippet from the article could, if read the wrong way, also imply that Y needs to be corrected in the way described, or at least can be corrected that way, in all the cases listed below, and that MgO is the standard reference white in the models listed. I know this wasn't intended, but a reader in a hurry might not catch that. So I guess we should just check all the sources. In the case of a physical reference white with a known reflectivity it's even possible that it's been compensated for already, like is often done in photography with the 90% reference I mentioned above.
From the Munsell article: ‘The original embodiment of the system (the 1905 Atlas) had some deficiencies as a physical representation of the theoretical system. These were improved significantly in the 1929 Munsell Book of Color and through an extensive series of experiments carried out by the Optical Society of America in the 1940s resulting in the notations (sample definitions) for the modern Munsell Book of Color.’ I think that's unnecessarily vague and seems to downplay the severity of the issue. It could also do with some inline citations.
FTA: Neither option turned out to be quite correct; scientists eventually converged on a roughly cube-root curve, consistent with the Stevens's power law for brightness perception, reflecting the fact that lightness is proportional to the number of nerve impulses per nerve fiber per unit time.[Hunt 1957]
There are a couple of problems with this part. First, scientists didn't in the end converge on a cube-root curve. I'm not bickering here about the fact that the underlying function probably isn't really a power function but more something based on Michaelis–Menten kinetics, after all the article says ‘roughly’, but about the fact that the stated gamma isn't the current value, which is context dependent but (according CIECAM02, which is isn't quite the most current but close, and a back of the envelope computation) in the range of about 1.6 (light) to 2.1 (dark). I think the root cause that the discrepancy is so large, rather than just being a bit off due to intervening advancement of understanding, is that Hunt is talking about brightness, not lightness, which has (again, according to CIECAM02) double the gamma, so about 3.1 to 4.1.
There's also a problem of chronology. Now, I know the impersonal writing style is de rigeur in much of academia and I myself was taught to write this way, but it's usually a terrible idea and Hunt 1957 is good example where it can appear especially disingenuous. Reading that article, phrases like ‘in a paper published’ and ‘it was concluded that’ made me think initially that the findings were those of others, perhaps even crystallised ideas generally held in the field. But checking the references it's clear it's actually talking about a previous paper by Hunt himself, published in 1953. So the article basically says ‘Hopkinson's 1956 results support my model’; reading Hopkinson's reply leaves me with the impression that Hopkinson wasn't so sure. Either way, Hunt's work isn't based on Stevens's, it couldn't have been because Hunt's work predated it by four years and Hopkinson's work by half a year.
And apparently the opposite wasn't true either. The fact that Hunt 1957 and Stevens 1957 were published in the same month appears to be a coincidence. Stevens takes his brightness data from work done by Hanes in 1949. (Which probably should be mentioned in the article. Even though Hanes's work was about brightness rather than lightness it's still relevant.)
And the clumsy way the snippet from the article was phrased makes it seem like there is some direct causal connection between a perception following Stevens's law and the proportionality to nerve impulses. As far as I can tell this isn't true; Stevens's law is purely empirical. The connection between actual chemical and physical processes and sensations is currently thought to be the Michaelis–Menten model. Which also means that although Steven's work may have historical significance and should hence be mentioned in the chronology, it doesn't directly relate to current understanding and its mention in this snippet is out of place.
Now, since I've mentioned CIECAM02, I feel obliged to say that the article discusses its technicalities and the basic model, but there are still a number of parameters which need to be fitted to fix the lightness scale. What I'm saying here is that even if the model is correct, it must still be fitted to good data to get the right parameters so that the resulting whole describes human colour vision. The article should explicitly cite the studies that provided the data underlying the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
FTA:
I'll discuss these in order.
So yeah, the article jumps backwards and forwards in time and gets causality wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 01:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
In 1996 Hård, Sivik & Tonnquist published experimental results that are relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
FTA: Munsell, Sloan, and Godlove launch a study
When you say ‘launch a study’ you implant an image in the reader's mind of about a hundred participants, government funding and oversight, that kind of thing. But the study that their formula was based on was just them and a couple of employees saying how many brightness differences they just about noticed between reflectance steps. They didn't show if that would be a good measure for brightness, I don't know if they were biased, I don't even know if they were lying or even if Munsell, Sloan & Godlove reported truthfully on the findings.
The second study they did had fourteen participants, some of them outsiders, and they essentially confirmed Munsell's original parabolic curve. To within experimental error, I'd say. Which of course doesn't mean the curve ultimately is a mathematical parabola, the underlying connection might be – in fact, is – different, just that whatever curve it is, the data that was available is very well approximated by it.
The only reason we need to mention them at all is because they ultimately managed to influence CIELAB. And how did that happen!? I'm used to people adding stuff to Wikipedia not having actually read the references they cite, but how did the CIE not catch on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 ( talk) 15:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Alexander Munsell's name is used once without telling us who this is - - -
"1933
Alexander Munsell, Louise Sloan, and Isaac Godlove launch a study..."
Is this a relative of Albert Munsell or an error that is meant to be Albert? There's no Wikipedia listing for this person other than this article.
Thank you for your attention, Wordreader ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Tone (color) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Tone (color) until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)