Talk:Tristimulus value

Merge

We are merely duplicating the CIE 1931 color space article. Should we redirect this one to that, or move that one here? I say the latter; the XYZ article is getting pretty long, and tristimulus value is deserving of its own article since it is not directly tied to one color space.--Adoniscik (talk). 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parts relevant to XYZ should definitely stay there. That article (CIE 1931 color space) should probably be generally rewritten to be more accessible to non-expert readers, and to flow more smoothly, but none of its current sections should be moved elsewhere, in my opinion. --jacobolus (t) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely oppose the proposal to merge the section from there to here. I'd prefer merging this article, which isn't much but a definition, into the other. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not merge them, what can be discussed here that is not already in CIE article?--Adoniscik (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Please do not remove a section entitled "Definition of the CIE XYZ color space" from an article entitled "CIE 1931 color space". The section describes the very foundation of the CIE color space and as such, it is specific to that space. A general tristimulus page could refer to that as a particular example, perhaps. PAR (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the current state of the tristimulus page I think it would be better if we simply made a subsection for it in the CIE 1931 article and redirected it there. The tristimulus page is a shell of a stub!--Adoniscik (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Make a section, and make this a redirect to it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]