As "Multicorfors" as the suffix "fors" which is us for Transforming Spells, how could it be the incantation for a Charm? I didn't play with the game Lego recently, but it seems to me that Multicorfors changes color and style of the minifig, not only color. I don't think it's the same spell. --14:46, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. "-fors" is for transforming spells; also, according to the Multicorfors section on the List of spells the spell only changes the colour and style; I'm going to risk changing the page back and re-creating the article for Multicorfors, just until either someone proves Multicorfors is the Colour-Change charm, or permanently. Again, though, this is a talk page so we should discuss it thereafter. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:47, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
The precise nature of "colour"
The page defines "colour" as referring to "the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow, green and others". However, a recent edit (which I just reverted) changed the definition to "the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow and those that can be made from mixtures of these colours".
The second definition is wrong, as it perpetuates the urban myth which I believe is still taught in primary schools, that "yellow, red and blue" are "the" primary colours; an idea which was shown in the early 20th century, by Edwin Land (who went on to found the Polaroid Corporation), to be wrong on two counts.
For a start, which are "the" primary colours depends on what kind of colour mixing you are doing; if additive (lights), the primaries are red, green and blue (as can easily be verified by using a powerful magnifier on a TV screen or monitor). Land showed in his experiments that for subtractive mixing (paints, filters or dyes), just about any three mutually-exclusive colours "work" (after a fashion), but magenta and cyan give far better results than the traditional red and blue respectively. This was probably suspected long before Land codified it; Wikimedia Commons has a reproduction of an 18th-century colour mixing chart on which the colours labelled "red" and "blue" are clearly magenta and cyan respectively. — RobertATfm (talk) 13:40, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Another recent edit had the summary '[The name] probably actually comes from the American spelling since it's "Colovaria" rather than "Colouvaria."'. This too is fallacious, since until fairly modern times "u" and "v" were equivalent, and to some degree interchangeable, except in carving where "v" was always used because it's easier to carve than "u". Hence the above argument doesn't "prove" anything. — RobertATfm (talk) 14:01, June 16, 2013 (UTC)