Talk:Metallic color

Color Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Materials Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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.

Metallic "colors" are not colors, in the formal sense

Metallic "colors" are not scientifically considered colors. They are a property of some surfaces produced by specular reflection. They don't fall into the definition of color (the perception produced by a uniform visual stimulus).

There is no set of LMS coordinates that correspond to silver, or gold.

Saying that metallic colors are colors is like saying that transparent is a color because there are transparent materials.

What I propose is mentioning that they are not strictly considered colors, and trying to avoid using the term "metallic colors" in favor of the term "metallic surfaces" whenever possible. 8-leaf clover (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@8-leaf clover: That may be true in some technical sense, but in the common vernacular sense, I think that the fact that Crayola has a line of "Metallic" crayons speaks volumes in and of itself. BD2412 T 01:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thus, objectively true knowledge must be what the articles contain.

And regarding Crayola, they could release a line of transparent crayons if they wanted to. That won't make transparent a color. Crayons, ink, paints, pigments, etc. are matter, and as such, they can have optical properties besides their color. That includes specular reflection.

I'm not saying that reading this article should feel like hearing a pedantic person speak, but a bit more of scientific accuracy wouldn't be bad. 8-leaf clover (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, not a technical encyclopedia. If there is a source for the proposition that metallic colors are technically not strictly considered colors, that could certainly be added to the article. BD2412 T 14:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]