Talk:Structural coloration
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Odysseus1479 in topic “coloration” but “colour”
 | Structural coloration has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 15, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the blue, turquoise and green colors of peacock tail feathers (pictured) result from structural coloration? | |||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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 is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
“coloration” but “colour”
editIf the article generally uses British spelling shouldn’t it be “colouration”? –jacobolus (t) 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest. See talk page of Animal coloration for the identical discussion. The upshot was that we Brits used a century or so ago to say colouration, but gee I guess we've been subject to cross-Atlantic influence since then, and we use coloration now. The dictionary rightly allows both usages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I had left a footnote on this spelling issue, which in retrospect should probably have been a hidden comment, to the effect that the chosen spelling is used both in American and in British English. That's probably better than switching to "colouration" which would likely lead to people "correcting" the spelling to AE. Any reasonable solution will however be fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It follows a little-known rule, that roots in -our when given Latinate suffixes should use the -or spelling accordingly, as if borrowed directly from Latin instead of through French: colouring & colourist but coloration, colorimetry, & colorize; honourable but honorarium; humourless but humorous; and so on. So this apparent aberration is actually a kind of etymological spelling, although the American usage may have been an influence post-Webster. (See Fowler’s MEU sv -our- and -or-.) Anyway, I generally presume the appearance of U in such words to be a hypercorrection.—Odysseus1479 02:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)