This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Color.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Color, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who is watching this page but more opinions about the lead of white would be good....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some discussions and contested edits that could benefit from more knowledgeable eyes. Please see recent sections at Talk:Primary color if you can help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Candy apple red (color) to be moved to Candy apple red. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template ((Transclude lead excerpt)).

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone here have the expertise to provide a full list of RGB approximations to the FS595 standard, as a Wikipedia table?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for CIE 1931 color space to be moved to CIE 1931 color spaces. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

In the article Colorfulness, I wanted to add the following: Quote: "Saturation is one of three coordinates in the HSL and HSV color spaces. However, in these color spaces "saturation" exists independently of lightness. E.g. in HSL and HSV a very light color can also be heavily saturated." Am I correct in that "saturation" as it is used in HSL and HSV has a different meaning than "saturation" as it is defined in Colorfulness? For instance, in the graphic at right, there are several highly saturated dark colors, but all of the light colors have very low saturation. It's a little confusing. Thanks. SharkD  ☎  06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on an initiative for these three related articles:

• List of colors: A–F
• List of colors: G–M
• List of colors: N–Z

The initiative is outlined here:

• Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

and being carried out here:

• Talk:List_of_colors#Colors_for_consideration_of_removal

Given that thousands of editors have edited those articles, I anticipated a little bit more involvement. So far, only a couple of editors have commented. I can continue mostly on my own, but I only have a surface knowledge of color issues, and I had hoped there would be editors with interest and expertise in the subject to might want to be involved. I'm posting here on the chance that there are some people watching this page that aren't aware of my initiative.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I will be organizing the templates based on their hue and lightness because I think there's too much overlap between some templates especially magenta and pink, when in reality those two colors are not very similar. I consider doing it like this based on their hues (I am also taking into account how humans would perceive and distinguish colors - eg. chartreuse (hue 90) looks closer to green (hue 120) than yellow (hue 60)):

• Red (330-15) (Pink would have a hue between 300 and 15 and would have a high lightness)
• Magenta (285-330)
• Violet (240-285)
• Blue (180-260) - overlaps slightly with violet and cyan
• Cyan (150-200)
• Green (80-160)
• Yellow (45-80)
• Orange (15-45) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightPirate (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I wanted to ask if any Wikiproject participants could provide outside opinion on a disagreement I am having with another editor about the shade of green to use on a colour template. It's for a public transit provider in Canada's Greater Toronto Area , GO Transit, and how to represent the shade of green they use on Wikipedia. While a primary colour is identified in an official manual, it is a Pantone value, and the other editor has raised points about representing pantone values digitally, and what's actively used on GO Transit's website. Please refer to the talk page for the full debate and the points raised, and provide comment. It would be appreciated to have some outsider opinion from Wikipedians engaged in colour issues. Thanks! --Natural R_X 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, new to this project after I've notices some inconsistencies and wanted to clarify before I made edits to some colors. I've noticed that several colors have their "source" as ISCC-NBS (example) and all of these links seem to be broken, leading to "http://tx4.us/nbs/nbs-c.htm". If you track down the real ISCC-NBS list, you rarely find a matching color name. This appears to be a complete source of color names for the ISCC-NBS system [1] and I suggest the links to the tx4 site be updated in all cases. It seems this source has been used to give a ballpark estimate of a color when a solid reference can't be found, has this project decided if this reference qualifies anymore? It seems like anybody could just make up a color name and could add it using this as a reference. Some colors do reference the ISCC-NBS that have a correct name but are not properly referenced, for example Taupe is classified as 'brownish gray' and references the ISCC-NBS system as its source but when you search for brownish gray in the system you find a color that has a different hex value as the color box on the wiki page. This is all pretty inconsistent. Some colors on the ISCC-NBS system are also not on wikipedia for example 'moderate pink' is HEX#dea5a4 according to the color system but can't be found on wikipedia but is a known and referenced color [2].

• does ISCC-NBS count as a reference for colors not on their list?
• how do we efficiently change all ISCC-NBS source references from the broken tx4 site to the non-broken site?
• Can we begin to add all the named colors on the ISCC-NBS list to wikipedia?
• How do we reconcile color coordinates that do not match their reference to the ISCC-NBS?

I look forward to helping out, let me know the game plan Jhmadden (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Jhmadden, the tx4 site can be accessed from the web archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20070705183916/http://tx4.us:80/nbsnotes.htm. tx4 is mentioned as a "potential" source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Sources for Color Coordinates, "potential" because 2007 people didn't have access to "insepct element" and believed that using a digital color meter is original research (smdh).

  The w3school list is in essence a copy of the tx4 site as you can tell from the w3-nbs.txt it links to. It is of the same ballpark-ness as the tx4 site. As for replacing the links, my personal preference is switching to the webarchive, but that's mostly due to your smug web developer's hate for w3school than anything else.

  I have no idea about the notability of all the named colors on the ISCC-NBS list. As for stuff that don't match, I think you can replace the unsourced ones, but the nice looking ones I won't recommend touching. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata and en.Wikipedia have a problem. Look at d:Q1412048 – the English link is grey component replacement which is some obscure trick of tertiary importance, whereas in German and Russian the entity links to color separation (German: Farbseparation). Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Gray component replacement is a basic part of the CMYK color separation process. It is one of the parameters that one specifies in setting up a color separation conversion from RGB to CMYK. It could be that the English link has an article, whereas the concept has no such article in the German and Russian wikipedias. Based on Google Translate, the corresponding article might be German: Graubalance. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If nobody objects, then I move the grey stuff to d:Q1421299 whereas Q1412048 has to serve color separation as a whole. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for CMYK color model to be moved to CMY color model. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Color is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Color until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone knows enough about color science, please join and help us with a good third opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s great that we have created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Color. But has anyone noticed that there is no information anywhere in wikipedia that tells us what color anything really is? If you think you already know what is and isn’t red, consider how many experts agree how naive direct realism is. In the next few paragraphs, I will propose a scientific method to falsify direct realism and objectively find out what color things really are.

The perception of color process is a long chain of causal events, starting when a ripe strawberry reflects red light. If the target of perception is the ripeness quality of a strawberry, our brain can take advantage of the fact that ripe strawberries reflect red light. Like all objective information, this light is nothing like the strawberry, so our brain needs to properly interpret this light, so we have knowledge that properly represents the target of our perception.

If we invert the red/green signal anywhere in this chain, this will of course change the quality of our knowledge of the strawberry. It is easiest to do this in the light stage of the chain like when we look at a red/green inverted negative picture of a strawberry. For example see the green one in the image to the right. But again, the only way that negative image you are looking at over there is really green, is if Naïve realism is true.

Nobody seems to notice what should be an obvious fact, which is that you can do a similar red/green signal inversion anywhere in this chain between the target of perception and our physical knowledge of the same. For example, you could move this negative picture inversion of the signal, from the light section, downstream to after the eye, in the optic nerve. In this case, red light would be landing on our eyes, but we would still have the same inverted knowledge of what would appear to be a green strawberry. Direct realism falsified.

If we are consciousnessly aware of something, there must be something physical that instantiates that knowledge. Physical knowledge is the final result of perception. We are directly aware of the causal physical qualities of our knowledge. It must be that it is our physical knowledge, which has these redness and greenness qualities, which cause us to say: “That is red.”

Red is used as a label for lots of different things, including the strawberry, the reflected light, and all the diverse physics in different heads that react to this. Obviously, defining the word “red” like this doesn’t tell us the quality of any of these things. We at least use light as some kind of physical reference, but this is only because light is the last point in the chain of perception that is easily inverted before the chain enters the body. Could it be that your brain represents what we all call “red” with something physically different than anyone else?

In order to talk about causal physical qualities, we need to use multiple words as labels for different physical things. For example, in the Canonizer camp on “Representational Qualia Theory”, we define the word “red” to be anything that reflects or emits “red” light. We use the different word “redness” as a label for whatever it is, in our brain, that has the redness physical quality. Anyone that only uses one word, like “red,” when talking about the physics of perception is blind to actual physical qualities. In other words, they are “qualia blind”. All of the information in Wikipedia is qualia blind in this way.

If we don’t know the actual color of the strawberry, what about the color of something in our brain, like the neurotransmitter glutamate? We know everything about how glutamate behaves in a synapse. But shouldn’t we be asking what that glutamate behavior is qualitatively like? Is it not a hypothetical possibility that it is glutamate that has the redness quality we can be directly aware of and that the following two names are labels for the same thing.

• Subjective: redness
• Object: glutamate

Various “knowledge arguments” such as “Mary's room” and “Inverted Spectrum” seem to be framed as “arguments against physicalism” or that “qualia are non physical”. Qualia tend to be framed as changing, while the physics stays the same. We also use terminology that separates qualia from physics like “generates”, “causes”, “correlates with”, “arises from” or “supervenes on”. All this kind of separation seems to be contributing to our qualia blindness. Maybe we should instead just realize that we don’t yet know what color anything is, and start using experimental methods that can tell us what color things like glutamate really are. ”Mind–body problem” solved.

To date, qualia theories have remained ineffable, or not objectively falsifiable. This has freed people to believe in a diverse set of non-falsified theories, many of which are represented in supporting sub camps to Representational Qualia Theory. This lack of consensus results in many edit wars all over Wikipedia. Representational Qualia Theory is finally a method to start falsifying theories and possibly forging a scientific consensus. This process has started, as can be seen by such facts as Dennett’s Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory is now in a supporting sub camp position to Representational Qualia Theory. Despite all this, it remains difficult to get any of this information accepted for publication in established journals. So any help by people who understand this, by joining or supporting camps, even if you disagree, will help move things forward in this field. Supporting Representational Qualia Theory or any of its sub camps, is like signing a petition, increasing completeness, credibility, and amplification of the wisdom of the crowd. Brent.Allsop (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Too long; didn't read. Do you have a point? Is there something we should do differently to improve the coverage of color? Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, Short answer. Good idea. There is no hard Mind–body problem, it’s all just a color problem. Everything in wikipedia on color is based on naive assumptions like the strawberry is red. In reality, it is our knowledge of the strawberry that is red. So, all articles on color should start distinguishing between reality, and knowledge of reality, so we can finally find out what it is that is red. Now philosophers can start doing theoretical work by making falsifiable predictions about what is and isn't red.

You must admit that this, and the few paragraphs above are far shorter than books like Consciousness Explained. Brent.Allsop (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I do freely and heartily admit that! Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As do I! But it doesn't matter. The coverage of color seems to be in line with accepted scientific knowledge of the perception of color. The question of qualia is interesting but strictly philosophy. Besides, "what color is something really" can have many answers, and I think anyone interested in having an exact and quantitative answer only needs to measure the reflectance spectrum of an object. TDcolor (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know this project existed till just now, while looking at the above article. It is imho, a disgrace of an article, unencyclopedic and unsourced. There are clearly colour experts around, and I wondered what others here in particular think of my opinion? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is basically a list-class article and an alternatively-formatted summary of other color list-class articles. Most entries point to their articles. Per WP:CLN, what's the problem? --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 02:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably that I am totally unfamiliar with WP:CLN so I'll have to read it. But the problem as it appeared to me that the article is unsourced, and secondly that it isn't a list of colours but a list of random colour names, and there are not even any hints as to how the list is constituted. Perhaps CLN will explain! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to foist the CLN jargon on you. The basic idea is that list-based articles like this, with entries being other articles or sections, are effectively navigation aids. Even for such articles, one may want sources to establish inclusion criteria. But in this case, the parent lists, List of colors: A–F, List of colors: G–M, and List of colors: N–Z, as explained in the lede, have been used to construct this list. The parents have already established criteria and S Philbrick has recently performed a pretty thorough vetting of their entries for verifiability. Insofar that this list is a compact reformatted version of the parent lists, additional inclusion criteria don't seem needed. It's possible that this article is out of sync with the parent articles; I have not checked. If so, some editing is in order. It does seem as a list of colors to me, as every entry is a rendered color bar followed by it's (linked) name.--((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that this article is crap, and totally unencyclopeadic. It has nothing in it of any value. Words representing colours are valueless for our project. As this appears to be sourced from the longer articles alphabetically, should I perhaps look at those instead, as the only source for this? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've started a rough to-do list of pages which I think should exist but do not. Is there an official one which already exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Da5nsy#Proposals_for_future_color_vision_pages Da5nsy (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! As far as I know, there is no WikiProject Color list of proposed articles. Generally folks work on articles and topics they are interested in and post here if they are looking for comments or collaboration. If you have an article you want to start and have some reliable sources to work from, go for it and be bold! FWIW, your list of articles looks lile they could be a useful and interesting addition to the encyclopedia. We do have Deane B. Judd. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of people with color blindness to be moved to List of colorblind people. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animals that can change color to be moved to List of animals that can change color. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hi, my name is Mira and I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. I posted a request on the Sherwin-Williams talk page to hopefully work with editors to make improvements to the article while following the site's guidelines for editors like me with a conflict of interest. As an employee, I will refrain from editing the article and related articles directly. I won't list my full request here, but you may review it on the Sherwin-Williams talk page.

This WikiProject is listed on the Paint article, so I thought it would be a good idea to reach out to see if there were any interested editors here.

Please let me know if this is the preferred way for a conflict of interest editor like myself to best collaborate with editors! I welcome your questions and feedback if they arise. Thanks in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm just closing the loop here to say that I received assistance with my initial suggestions for improving the Sherwin-Williams article. I also learned new tricks for requesting future help. Other interested editors here are welcome to join the conversation at the Talk:Sherwin-Willams page and assist with future requests. I will continue to suggest edits to the article, while refraining to edit the content myself, due to my conflict of interest. Thanks again! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Introducing the Color Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I am looking to start an article about all the transformations to single colors people do in computers (inversion in different color spaces,^[1] hue-shifting, all these shenanigans) but I cannot figure out a good term to search for. Having such an article can come in handy with things like Light-on-dark color scheme, since it is worth talking about how much computer color spaces matter when inverting IMO. The concept should also apply to color blending and nicely bring out some of the recent CSS Color 4 changes.

In other words, what's the term that best fills in the blank here? "BLANK is a function that maps (transforms) one color to another. Unlike color mapping, it does not need to take into account any context. Unlike color transformation in color management, it is generally intended to change the color for artistic effect, not retain it." (And no, it's not a color matrix, since it can be nonlinear too.)--Artoria2e5 🌉

I think color mapping is an appropriate term. In scientific visualization and GIS, color mapping refers to assigning data values to colors. The data may be anything you want to visualize, even other colors. There is no context restriction here, the data can be real, ordinal, categorical, scalar or multidimensional. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of colors: N–R is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of colors: N–R until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

-DePiep (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Saffron (color) to be moved to Saffron (colour). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Colorfulness to be moved to Colorfulness, chroma, and saturation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ROYGBIV 35,851 1,195 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Newly released stub article Gendered associations of pink and blue needs your help in expanding it. Can you lend a hand? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is still active on this project, we could use some opinions at Talk:Primary color/GA1#The RYB POV problem, re how to treat the "traditional" or "painters'" RYB primaries in the article Primary color. An editor has done his best to deprecate, demote, remove, and criticize RYB as primaries, and took the article to good-article review in that form; I'm trying to fix it back to a more useful and neutral treatment. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Color coding technology for visualization to be moved to Color coding in data visualization. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Color code to be moved to Color-coding. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Is there a formula used to determine the saturation of a color in the Munsell system? This article states the lines of equal saturation radiate from "near the black point". However, it also states that saturation is the “colourfulness of an area judged in proportion to its brightness”. Logically, this should imply implies that lines of uniform saturation should radiate *exactly* from the black point, not just *near* the black point. ➧datumizer  ☎  04:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I added some images to this post to clarify what I mean. ➧datumizer  ☎  00:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Munsell system does not have closed form calculations. Each munsell sample is placed in its position by experimentation. TDcolor (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@TDcolor: @Djcbriggs: So the red lines in the illustration are guesswork? Why were they placed where they were placed? Would it be okay to recreate the illustrations with the red lines emanating from the black point (versus below it)? Please ping me when responding. ➧datumizer  ☎  19:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Datumizer: They are illustrating the idea that constant saturation is not the same as constant chroma. One is relative to the colors own apparent brightness and the other is relative to the brightness of a white object in the same scene. See the CIE definitions of chroma and saturation. The exact lines in this plot are either just interpretation or estimation from the contributor, or use an unknown appearance model to produce the approximate lines. TDcolor (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for RGB color space to be moved to RGB color spaces. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for High-dynamic-range video to be moved to High-dynamic-range television. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Color analysis (art) to be moved to Color analysis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Not sure if this project is still active, but here goes.

The color articles (at least the primary and secondary colors) have lots of great content but are so sprawling that they defy editing and, I think, inhibit reading. My tentative suggestion is that we split them into technical vs cultural aspects. Both sides of the split would mention highlights of the other. Technical would include spectral/optical phenomena, colorants, and natural occurrence. Cultural would include art, military, sport, etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: see Color blue in culture and check out the newly streamlined blue.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Web colors to be moved to Web color. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

See the discussion at Talk:Primary color/Archive 4#Linking pigments and primary colors. Some more opinions would be welcome there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Color code to be moved to Color-coding. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Prism to be moved to Prism (optics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hi friendly Wikiproject color folks. Koavf (talk · contribs) is insisting on deleting most of the article dominant wavelength unless someone can provide sources for it ASAP. Does anyone have the bandwidth to go do some research about that today or soon? I don’t have the time/energy right away, but will try to get around to it when possible if nobody else steps up. –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to get more feedback, Jacobolus. Relevant policies here are WP:V and WP:OR, which prohibit the inclusion of unsourced material or original research on Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Folks may want to start from https://archive.org/details/0518-pdf-colorimetry/page/65/ –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jacobolus after reading the article, it's in pretty bad shape, references or not. The tone is way too conversational and there are quite a few concepts that are conflated. I can give it some attention in the next few days, but it'll probably end up being half the length it is now anyway. Curran919 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jacobolus... Alright, hopefully I brought it up to snuff! Please give it a read-through. Curran919 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll take a closer look when I get a chance to see if anything relevant is still missing, but that looks like a big improvement. –jacobolus (t) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely, you may have noticed that the icon for this WikiProject has been de-aliased by replacement with a raster image. The copies at Color wheel and HSL and HSV have been replaced for the same reason. At small sizes, the old SVG version has noticeable aliasing, especially in the purple and red sectors, due to the way it is constructed; see c:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#File:Color_circle_(RGB).svg for more details. Any ideas on how to make an accurate SVG color wheel that does not have these antialiasing problems?

• 
  SVG version at gallery size (120px)
• 
  PNG version at gallery size (120px)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine, though I don’t much like the logo with or without visual artifacts :). YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 02:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that SVG has only a very limited ability to produce gradients. It has no ability to produce a gradient following a curved path (in this case a circle would be required). I have looked for solutions to this problem before (I was looking for gradients on curved pipes and wires and such) and all the solutions I found involved creating multiple copies of similar objects. This will inevitably lead to aliasing. The small objects in this case are very thin circle sectors to mimic the circular gradient. Plus, this image requires gradients in two different directions simultaneously (radially and circularly) which again, SVG is entirely incapable of doing directly even if the requirement was reduced to just linear gradients. My only suggestion is to give up on trying to mimic a circular gradient and make the sectors much wider so it looks more like a traditional colour wheel with visible sectors. By the way, I agree with jacobulus; the aliasing is not a big problem. I didn't notice it until it was pointed out, and even then I had to look carefully for it. SpinningSpark 08:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, something that is intended to only ever be used as a logo (ie small) is not really problematic to have as a PNG image. SpinningSpark 08:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

One more suggestion; it might be worth asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab for more ideas. SpinningSpark 08:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been hitting the color vision and color blindness articles pretty hard recently. A few major edits/merges/splits that I want to get some input on. I keep track of these on my user page, but I'll copy the current list here. If you could weigh in, that'd be great.

• (talk) Split Draft:Color vision standards from Color blindness
• (talk) Split Color blindness#Genetics of red-green color blindness from Color blindness
• (talk) Merge Evolution of human colour vision to Evolution of color vision in primates
• (talk) Merge Pentachromacy to Tetrachromacy
• (talk) Delete color table in Spectral color.

Curran919 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, Jacobolus, Koavf, SpinningSpark, Uli Zappe, Da5nsy, North8000, and TDcolor: If any of you have any opinions on any of the above topics, that'd be handy! Curran919 (talk) Curran919 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I commented on one and the colorblindness thread is archived, so I don't want to post there, but I would support a split, since there are a lot of sources for this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I unarchived those two bits (and edited the links above), and commented there and a few other places. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm buried in the real world right now and giving intelligent answers on those would take a lot of thorough work which I'm not able to do right now. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• I recognise the point that Pentachromacy does not have a lot to say that is not already said in Tetrachromacy, other than a dicdef, but it seems perverse to me to merge it into that title. If the combined page were renamed Polychromacy that would make more sense. There are certainly examples of species that go way beyond 5-chroma that could be mentioned on such a page. SpinningSpark 14:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  The name tetrachromacy is preferable because it is the popular term and catches the imagination. it's often what people will look for on this topic. Unless other larger "chromacy"s get extensive coverage, the name tetrachromacy should be kept.TDcolor (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Seems entirely fine to me to have a section at the bottom about “extra-tetrachromacy” or whatever. If people can find extended conversations in reliable sources specifically about pentachromacy, it could be turned into a separate article, but there’s no essential need for one. The current pentachromacy article is about half speculation and the other half vague handwaving. The goal is to help readers here (and secondarily to control the writing/maintenance burden on Wikipedia authors), not to pedantically worry about taxonomies. –jacobolus (t) 17:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Color blindness used to have a note that called mantis shrimp dodecachromats, but I don't think dodecachromacy is called for. Its not a trivial point though. General terms "Polychromacy", "Multichromacy" and "n-chromacy" get thrown around sometimes but are not really represented in literature. "High-dimension color vision" is the most prominent general term I've found, but that maybe belongs in color vision. A general term doesn't really exist. Colloquially, people use tetrachromacy to describe really any above-par color vision. Color vision doesn't currently have a good discussion on dimensionality. Curran919 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  oh lord, I had no idea dodecachromacy actually had a redirect... Curran919 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Curran919: Seems like a great set of changes. There is a lot of research today about spectral / physiological variation in otherwise color normal observers that should be covered in this topic list. For example, color normal observers have been found to have 1:2 L:M cone ratio, as well as 1:19 IIRC. These kinds of extreme variations still resulting in "normal color" is very exciting!! As well as the variation in sensitivity curves (Yuta Asano, Mark Fairchild). The variation in "unique hues" which demonstrate that two people can be color normal but disagree about what pure yellow (ex.) is, yet both of them can be correct in that their answers are consistent and can produce well aligned sets of experimental data. Wish I had time to contribute on that! TDcolor (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented 3 of them already, so I'm glad you like 'em! Variability in color normal vision is indeed a very interesting topic that maybe could afford to be added to color vision or color blindness. The FM-100hue's classifications of below average, average and superior color vision (all "normal") exemplifies it. Curran919 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 1

@Spinningspark, TartarTorte, Ljleppan, Jay, and ThunderBrine: A lot of "shades of green"-related redirects have been brought up for discussion recently and a broader pattern has become evident. There should probably be a broader discussion about what to do about this situation somewhere, so I've started one here.

Much of the current situation was created by ThunderBrine (talk · contribs) during early 2021. They also made extensive changes to many other colour-related articles (shades of red, orange, azure, cyan) over the course of the same year. I don't know if these changes were discussed anywhere, but they have resulted in many entries being placed in counter-intuitive places (like "olive" being listed as a shade of yellow rather than a shade of green) as well as the creation of some oddly specific "shades of" lists like Shades of chartreuse and the current list at Spring green. Additionally, these lists have been desynchronised with their respective templates. (eg. ((Shades of green)))

These issues were noted recently at several redirects for discussion. (See eg. Army green at August 12, Asparagus at August 11, Avocado at August 5.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think they should be moved to where they are most intuitively as opposed to where they should be located based on a spectral analysis, but if the latter is/or becomes consensus that's fine. My main concern is that when colors are moved the corresponding redirects are also moved. I am not sure the best way to accomplish this because there's nothing informing you that pages redirect to a section when removing that section. TartarTorte 16:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• My opinion is that we should go through ThunderBrine's colour-related edits from that period and revert them en masse (with sensible exceptions). The principle that colours should be grouped according to their wavelength or their angle on the colour wheel (which is what ThunderBrine has been doing) is fundamentally misguided. Colour is a subjective quality and perceived colour can and does change with changes of luminance and saturation. There is no objective way to classify colours; one can only ask how a colour is subjectively perceived. As I argued in the army green redirect, this perception changes dramatically with species. In humans a mixture of green and red light is perceived as yellow. For most tones of yellow, humans are not able to distinguish this colour from the equivalent monochromatic yellow. However, many species will perceive these as totally different colours. A fully objective classification (a la ThunderBrine) would have to call the mixed colour a different name, such as red-green (colour). The fact that we have no such redirect tells you why such a classification is not the way to go. SpinningSpark 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• The colors should be moved back, the categories should be based on common associations with the color terms instead of arbitrarily deciding based on hue in a HSL/HSV coordinate system many of which do not fully cover green well, let along the full color space. I also continue to have reservations about the over reliance in general of "exact" appearing color coordinates in a large number of our articles about colors, especially the shades of articles. PaleAqua (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more prior discussions, not exhaustive:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 17#Template:Shades of spring green
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 11#Template:Shades of spring green
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 12
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 26

PaleAqua (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the template discussions, it seems Keraunos (talk · contribs) made similar arguments to ThunderBrine back in 2010, although the former stopped being active in 2013. It looks like one the motivators driving these oddly specific templates/lists is a desire for completeness, reflected in trying to fill out 'missing' articles and templates for all the tertiary colours.

1. One problem with this the tertiary colours don't actually have well-established names in English. I've far more often heard "lime" or simply "yellow-green" than "chartreuse", for example. Who decided that the colour between green and yellow is "chartreuse"? And who decided that the other colours between yellow and green are shades of chartreuse? Why, of all the named colours between yellow and green, is "chartreuse" at the top of the hierarchy? Why not have "chartreuse" be a shade of "lime"? Why is this arbitrary terminology being pushed as a norm or standard? There is nothing objective, normal, or standard about this nomenclature as far as I can tell. Is this original research? I'm not really sure how you would go about establishing the common names here.
2. Another problem is the assumptions about tertiary colours are faulty. The tertiary colours end up the same whether you use favour additive RGB or subtractive CYM, but what if you use the traditional subtractive RYB model? The working assumption seems to be that RYB is objectively obsolete and should therefore be ignored, but it's still a widely used model especially among artists and it's widely taught to children (for various reasons). Additionally, the opponent-process model challenges the assumption that there are only three primary colours. The number of tertiary colours and which colours they happen to be depends on your choice of colour model; there is no objectively correct approach even when setting aside the problem of terminology.

tl;dr - Even ignoring the problem of exact colour coordinates and hue angles, the number of basic colours that should have "shades of" articles, their hierarchy, and their names can all be disputed. The working assumptions behind the current situation are fundamentally faulty. – Scyrme (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I too was struck by chartreuse but I let it pass as other colour names in mapping schemes, magenta for instance, are not often found in common speech but clearly have some provenance. In the case of chartreuse, however, that is not so clear. Our color wheel article has numerous examples of historical colour wheels going as far back as the 18th century. Every one of these names the colour as green-yellow or yellowish green (or the equivalent in another language). I'm getting similar results in gbooks. Chartreuse is not seen in our article images until we get to the Wikipedia generated colour wheels. That is beginning to look like a Wikipedia invention, or at least something quite rare. Books on art and design do describe chartreuse and where it is on the colour wheel, but it is usually described as a pastel or darkened colour rather than a fully saturated colour eg [3][4]. SpinningSpark 08:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Revert all the edits. As shown in the army green redirect discussion, this is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH as it was not supported with any proper sourcing that "army green" is "yellow". WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to the thinking that moved these things just because of a theoretical non-human color scale. It is not how a logically structured world would classify things, but how the world actually classifies things that the encyclopedia documents. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a research journal. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I broadly agree, but being charitable, the hue angle approach has the benefit of being unambiguous (assuming you can quantify the hue in question). If we decide to put things where people actually intuitively put them, that raises the issue of whose intuitions to follow. The references won't necessarily agree on whether a particular shade is yellow or green. Problems may arise with editors adding redundant or duplicated material, or moving material arbitrarily between articles to "correct" the placement in line with their preferred sources (or their own intuitions). – Scyrme (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• We have extensive guidelines on how to deal with reliable sources that disagree. We can mention both viewpoints, but avoid giving WP:UNDUE attention to a minority or rare system. SpinningSpark 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don't those concern content within an article, rather than where the content should be in the first place? – Scyrme (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't agree with that. WP:V and WP:NPOV will prevent you from writing an extensive description of Murphy's law in the Scientific law article. Plainly, mainstream reliable sources do not classify Murphy's law as a scientific law. That remains true even if you can find, as you probably can, some sort of source somewhere that does so make the claim. But it's perfectly acceptable to talk about Murphy in adage. WP:UNDUE explicitly addresses such issues. Likewise, army green should not have an extensive description in shades of yellow if sources generally call it a shade of green. If mainstream sources disagree, then WP:BALANCE comes into play. SpinningSpark 11:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• (Responding because of the ping, even if I'm not an expert (or even active) in color related articles.) All these moves by ThunderBrine look like a bunch of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH combined with a dose of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I don't know how far back their moves go, but based on the arguments I've seen and the moves I've noticed, I'd go with a "revert all", placing the onus on ThunderBrine to demonstrate why any specific ones should not be reverted. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 2

• I understand if the viewpoint I'm supporting, whether true or false, may not be supportable on the public site. However, before the community decides to change the pages drastically, I would still like to go over some things.

  @Scyrme is correct. I still wish for a sense of completeness and logical structure. I did not like how orange was the only tertiary color to be "glorified" as to get documentation in the same way as the primary and secondary colors. It also felt right to do because the blue and green page were extremely vague in their color classification, which is likely because they are primary colors, and technically any color within their 120 degree range could be classified as that color. Yellow and cyan are types of green, magenta and cyan are types of blue, etc. However, red's page is seeming more strict in classification. I assume the colors magenta, rose, orange, and yellow (all commonly known color names) are to blame for stripping red of its potential vaguely expansive page. However, we didn't have commonly accepted names for yellow-green, green-cyan, cyan-blue, and blue-magenta. Sure, they may be sourced (which is how I found them), but are not commonly known. So I took the names that was already accepted by Wikipedia (Chartreuse, Spring, Azure, Violet), and started working in order to complete the set. The names themselves didn't matter, but what they represented mattered. The contents that were moved to them could easily be moved to another page if that page had a name that carried the meaning behind it. Orange, the infamous tertiary color at the source of this debate, was the name of the color that represented a random fruit, and the classification of this specific color could have easily gone to another red-yellow colored object, but since it was accepted by fellow intellectuals (like everyone here), it is used commonly; Again, I worked on what was already in use and accepted, and tried not to pluck the names out of thin air. Some were easy to transfer with minimal infighting (usually a debate of this nature on Wikipedia wouldn't take 2 years to be brought up, given the puntual staff here): For example, many colors moved to chartreuse fit the logical HSV/HSL mathematics, but they were additionally referred to as "yellow-green" or "olive-green", which in a way was kind of a 'dog whistle'.

  1. TANGENT:If they are sourced that way, I would prefer if they are moved/kept in their appropriate pages; If they aren't, then I would have no argumentative power to object (in the case that the viewpoint I'm supporting is not being supported).
     • I doubt that any such mercy will be given to green-cyan's colors (Spring), but "bluish-green" or "mint" could be considered dog-whistles for it, however cyan also has such dog-whistles. Azure will have a difficult time, as lots of people already see cyan as "just blue", instead of it's own color; cyan-blue, while a distinct tertiary color in RGB/CMYK, will probably not have many stragglers. Violet, aka blue-magenta, while it may be incredibly established, would have to contend with name "Purple" for the content that looks like it, as Purple's name already has a lot of backing. Finally, Rose's dog whistles are "red-magenta" or "red-pink"—given magenta has been referred to as neon pink before.
  2. TANGENT: To argue against counter-intuitive design, the color, Olive has been sourced multiple times by multiple sites to be yellow or yellow-green (mostly by marketing sites—who tend to deal with graphic designs—, home interior sites, and color sites for artists, who all deal with color extensively). Also, in a way, if olive is yellow, than "olive-green" is just yellow-green, which is chartreuse. Oddly, it has also been sourced as brown because of its dark and dull color. --ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 02:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

On the "glorification" of orange, research has shown that orange appears very early as a named colour across all cultures and languages. It's at no.5 according to this paper. The peak wavelength in humans of the L cone (red) and M cone (green) are very close together compared to the S cone (blue). Colours between these two peaks (yellows and oranges) are thus much easier to distinguish in the same way that frequencies of audible tones are easier to distinguish in regions where auditory hair cells are closer together. it is thus not so surprising that we view orange as a distinct colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Shades of... articles were clearly never meant to conform to a technical definition. A shade (color) is a different brightness of a given hue. It does not include variations in hue and saturation, but all our Shades of... articles explicitly say that they do so include them. Pink is not technically a shade of red, it is desaturated red which is a different thing altogether. It is being bull-headed to impose technical restrictions on articles that are based on perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, see the discussion that decided to rename these articles as shades of... in the first place. I argued against it for exactly the reason of this confusion. SpinningSpark 13:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 4#Various proposals pertaining to the Shades of ..._templates & categories, which has a bunch of summary on older discussions on shades vs variations vs tones vs hues of etc. And is also part of why various "shades of " articles got split out of some of the larger color articles. In hindsight I wonder if something that side stepped the different definitions of "shade" such as "Red colors", "List of red colors", or "Colors that are red" might have been a better choice. PaleAqua (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It was originally called Variations of red which was a perfectly fine title for its contents as far as I'm concerned. The change was not for the better. SpinningSpark 16:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the past discussions linked above, I don't see a good reason given for favouring "shade". I don't agree with the arguments made that "variations" is in some way more peculiar than "shades"; they are just as natural as each other, and if you do an online search you'll find plenty of pages using both interchangeably on the same page. Neither would be unrecognisable in vernacular discussion. It was noted in the discussion that "shades of" is more common phrasing but those statistics can't distinguish different senses of the same word; this is especially relevant when questioning common vs technical use.

When the use of a word varies in the precision of its meaning, it's usually better to go with an alternative which doesn't as that makes the scope of the article clearer, and prevents content in the article being misunderstood or becoming contradictory due to mixing up definitions (which is made more likely when a variety of references is used). "Variations" or "varieties" would be practically better titles for these reasons.

In one of the earlier discussion linked it was suggested that "varieties" better emphasises that the article concerns a cluster of associated colours rather than produced by modifying or varying some definite, basic, or ideal colour (or hue). Given the current situation has been based in part on assuming the latter interpretation, that might be worth considering if we agree that the scope of these articles should instead be the former interpretation.

"List of [adjective] colours" may better suggest a cluster of associated colours than either "variations" or "varieties" since it explicitly refers to "colours" in plural. However, "[adjective] colours" is comparatively less common phrasing than the other options. – Scyrme (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Our lightness article has something to say that may be very relevant to the classification of olive. Because of the shape of the cone response S-curve, when the luminance of a colour is reduced, even if its spectral composition remains the same, the different cone responses don't quite change at the same rate with respect to each other. It is plausible therefore that the perceived hue and saturation will change at low luminance levels. This is sourced to [5] and may provide an objective reason why the perception of olive is distinct from yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal - Most of us seem to agree that the "shades of" articles (regardless of title) should exist for well-established basic colours in the English language rather than on some systematic effort to cover all the primary, secondary, and tertiary hues.

• Following that, I'd suggest that there should be "shades of" articles for black, white, grey, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink, brown. Perhaps also indigo, and violet since these are often named instead of purple when listing the colours of the rainbow (ROYGBIV).
• Most of these already exist with corresponding navbox templates, and the more niche lists should be merged into them. Magenta and cyan may be common in technical use, but my understanding is that in vernacular English they are simply shades of pink (cf. "hot pink") and blue (cf. "electric blue") respectively. I don't have strong opinion on keeping them or merging them. As a note, ((Color topics)) currently lists only these "Shades of" articles: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue, Violet, Purple, Magenta, Pink, Brown, White, Gray, Black

The best case for creating niche lists is that the main lists can get long and cluttered, which impairs easy navigation. To remedy this, I suggest:

• Unsourced or poorly sourced entries should be pruned. The remaining entries should be organised into subsections grouping similar hues to aid navigation, rather than listing them all in one big alphabetical list. However, the sublists can be organised alphabetically. Grouping sections by hue provides a compromise between a systematic approach and a more subjective, cultural approach. The problem of niche titles created by the former is mitigated, since readers can navigate the sublists by eye and ignore any questionable titles. (An improvement over the current situation, since a reader won't necessarily know to search for "shades of chartreuse" or "azure" or whatever.)
• Colours which only exist because a company like Crayola arbitrarily decided to name them should probably be moved to a dedicated list like "List of Crayola crayon colours" rather than being mixed with terms in more general use. Something similar could be done for "official" colours which are arbitrarily defined and named by an institution as a representative symbol. For example, we could have a "List of university colours", organised by hue, rather than cluttering the main lists with entries like "Michigan State University green" (listed as "MSU green" on Shades of green). Such entries are rarely used as a practical colour terms in the English language, and only contribute clutter.

Redirects would be retargeted or deleted accordingly after the content has been moved to its appropriate place. – Scyrme (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable, though perhaps a set of criteria based on sources should be set up for the what the basic colors are. For example color terms usually being referred to as another color term in reliable sources. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support sounds good to me. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support though I would argue for inclusion of cyan as a main color and exclusion of violet, indigo and definitely magenta (fuchsia/magenta are webbed at 300 degrees, so are quintessential purple, not the hot pink at 330deg). -Curran919 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support is appropriate. I would argue that the primary and secondary colors should stay: Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue, Magenta, along with Black, Grey, White. I don't know what will happen to the tertiary color pages: Orange, Chartreuse, Spring, Azure, Violet, Rose, but if they are deleted (or partially deleted), I wouldn't have a strong opinion.
  Also, if we're cutting down on fat, maybe Purple, Brown, and Pink could be torn apart and redistribute the pieces to the main color pages. I'm just basing it off of ((Color classifications)). Purple could go in magenta (and/or violet if we're keeping that); Pink could either go in red or magenta (and/or rose if we're keeping that); Brown could go in Red, Orange, and/or Yellow.--ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Brown, orange, and pink are widely recognised colour cetegories, at least in common speech in English. I think it would be detrimental to have their information scattered in some other article. I'm convinced that few people (other than artists etc who are familiar with colour mixing) think of brown as a variation of orange or red. Few people think of orange as red-yellow in the same way that turquoise is commonly recognised as a blue-green. Pink is never called light red in the way that other pastel tints are such as light blue. These colours therefore have a special place in our perception. At worst, these colours should be self-contained sub-sections in another article with a redirect. That is possible for pink, but the other two have ambiguous targets. Browns can be variations of red or orange. Orange, as a mixture of red and yellow is entirely problematic to choose a redirect target. SpinningSpark 13:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I don’t support these articles existing as much as others might, but I strongly support the cleanup suggested. As a technician and a teacher I would prefer Cyan and Magenta be treated as more central than Indigo, Violet or Pink, and I see no reason Shades of indigo and violet couldn’t redirect to purple. Depending on the outcome of which colors survive, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to include some of the colors from those groups in multiple Shades of _ articles. — HTGS (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support The proposal for the Shades of articles is perfectly sensible, except that we would need to decide how each "Shades of" list will be sorted — in particular, Shades of green would span a wide variety of hues and lightnesses, from tea green to Pakistan green and from lime green to aquamarine. For mergers:
  • Shades of chartreuse and Spring green should be merged into Shades of green.
  • Shades of azure should be merged into Shades of blue.
  • Shades of purple and Shades of violet should be merged into one article, but the name of the combined list is up for grabs. The navbox and category are currently under the violet label.
  • I am undecided whether Shades of magenta should be diffused among Shades of purple and Shades of pink, merged into Magenta as a list of variants, or kept as a standalone article.
  • I am undecided whether Shades of cyan should be diffused among Shades of green and Shades of blue, merged into Cyan as a list of variants, or kept as a standalone article. The case for keeping it is slightly weaker than for magenta.
  • Shades of rose should be merged into Shades of magenta and Shades of red.
  • In the end, we would definitely have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple/violet, pink, brown, white, gray, and black.
  • The category structure should exactly parallel our Shades of articles. In particular, Category:Shades of azure will be merged into Category:Shades of blue, if and only if the article is.
• –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The names “cyan” and “magenta” should not be used as generic color terms. These are technical jargon terms invented for CMYK printing (alternate names for "purplish red" and "greenish blue"), and refer originally (and still predominately) to the specific ink colors used there. (To be precise the name "magenta" comes from a dye discovered a few decades earlier, but now predominately refers to the CMYK color.) They were mistakenly added (as almost completely unrelated colors) to the list of HTML/CSS color names by computer programmers who didn’t know what they were doing, where they have caused a lot of confusion. These names are not in widespread use either in society at large or in color reproduction/etc. outside the context of CMYK printing. If you want a list of basic color categories, the most supportable set that would not be original research is the ISCC–NBS system, or perhaps the list of names found by careful ethnographic research by Berlin/Kay and others, see Basic Color Terms. –jacobolus (t) 13:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Cyan and magenta are as invented as the color orange—they’re just less commonly understood. Yes, they are jargon to a large degree, but they are the most commonly used jargon by any professional working with printed color (and many who do design work but don’t print). I don’t mind omitting them from the core structure of how we plan “Wikipedia’s map of color”, but to omit them from core lists of colors would be silly. As for their actual value, they are the secondary colors in an RGB system; programmers (or displays) may have once rendered them wrong, but those values displayed currently as “web magenta” or “web cyan” are the same colors (if not the same tones or shades) as what I could pour out of my printer’s ink tanks. They’re two FFs plus one 00 after all. They’re central to both the RGB and the CMYK models; the two systems I believe are the most common models used this century. (As for “greenish blue”, maybe I’ve spent too long looking at them, but I can’t recall ever seeing a hint of blue in what is rendered as cyan. I think the average person would read “green+blue” as the mix of two pigments—a sort of teal color—rather than the additive consequent.) — HTGS (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

[cyan and magenta] are the most commonly used jargon by any professional working with printed color – yes this is my point, these are not generic color terms, but refer specifically to printer inks. those values displayed currently as “web magenta” or “web cyan” are the same colors – no, these are nowhere close to the same colors. I made an image a few years ago, shown at right, showing the difference in Munsell space. The RGB colors #F00, #0F0, #00F, #FF0, #F0F, #0FF are shown as triangles, while the CMY primaries in a few common CMYK printing profiles are shown as other shapes. You can see that these are nowhere close to each other. Printer’s cyan is a slightly greenish blue (nowhere close to “teal”), whereas the RGB color #0FF is bright blue–green. Printer’s magenta is a purplish red, whereas #F0F is barely on the red side of purple. What HTML calls “cyan” and “magenta” bear nearly no resemblance to their namesakes (they are perceptually about as far apart in hue as “orange” from “red”), and naming them by the same names is an incredibly confusing mess. To the extent possible any reputable source should try to avoid perpetuating / exaggerating the confusion. This is not the same situation as the color “orange” which is now pervasively used throughout English-speaking society to indicate hues about halfway between unique red and unique yellow. –jacobolus (t) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Realistically we’re both just pushing our POV on how people “should” think about color, but as I said, Wikipedia’s chosen system doesn’t have to reflect RGB or CMYK. Colloquial understandings of color are fine. There’s no reason to act like cyan and magenta just aren’t colors because you don’t like them though. No, RGB and CMYK spaces don’t typically represent them exactly the same; RGB green doesn’t look like CMYK green either if we’re being that picky though. (NB: not an argument against green… nor was I suggesting that orange should be dropped… nor was I suggesting that cyan == teal...)

I could post a CIE based graph in response to your graph, but we both just have our favored map projections (maybe you like Mercator and I like Kavrayskiy). All I’m pointing out is that cyan and magenta do in fact exist, and are used by probably the majority of the world’s population who work with color (*gestures vaguely at a made up statistic*), and it would be silly to pretend they… don’t exist. — HTGS (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

To save folks here from clicking through, here are the basic ISCC–NBS categories:

I largely support this idea for two reasons. Firstly, it gels with my own views on how most people perceive colour categorisation. Secondly, it is based on a recognised classification scheme. My only note of caution is that I am not sure how widely used this scheme is. In particular, is there a danger that we could be accused of being US-centric? Is it even widely used in the US? That is not clear from the article and I'm only seeing limited independent references to it, mostly 1960s or earlier. SpinningSpark 07:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The only very widely used name-based systems are stuff like paint company category schemes or Pantone PMS spot colors, which are idiosyncratic, arbitrary, proprietary, and don’t really try to make themselves useful for generic communication. As far as useful and widespread systems go, the Munsell color system on which the ISCC-NBS system is based is pretty good, but is organized as numerical coordinates rather than discrete categories. From what I can tell, the ISCC–NBS system, despite some original buy-in from color experts in industry and the US national bureau of standards, never really became super widely used, but nor has any other comparable system: for internal industry use, people largely stick to numerical coordinates of one sort or another, and for public communication the prevailing practice continues to be making up random names, often contradictory or nonsensical. Laypeople for the most part don’t use any system at all – but of course do use a variety of loosely defined color names, and if more specificity is desired will add qualifiers, “banana yellow”, “blood red”, “robin egg blue”, “clover green”, or whatever. I think the ISCC–NBS system would still be better than the current practice on Wikipedia pages which is based on arbitrary editors’ personal feelings, both as a useful system per se and also for avoiding “original research”. –jacobolus (t) 17:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

One final advantage of the ISCC–NBS color name dictionary etc. is that as works of the US government they are all in the public domain, so can be freely used however anyone likes. For anyone who wants to look, here is a freely available scan of the 1976 version at the internet archive, and here is a scan of the 1955 version. –jacobolus (t) 17:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I should add here, that while not used ubiquitously, it’s also not like the ISCC–NBS system has been completely forgotten or never gets used today. E.g. a google scholar search turns up more than 2000 references in the academic literature since 2000, more than 1000 of which have been since 2015 (for comparison, "pantone" has 10x more mentions). jacobolus (t) 17:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

L Looking at Pantone is not very useful here. It's true that it's widely recognised and used (I've used it myself to specify colours of products in my professional life) but it's not a categorisation system, which is what we need here. SpinningSpark 20:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we could use the ISCC-NBS scheme, which is well-demarcated and hence satisfies WP:CALC without creating duplication of entries due to crosslisting. We would begin with the 13 Level 1 descriptors, sectioned according to the Level 2 and Level 3 categories, of which there sre respectively 29 and 267. But how would we handle RS which describe a color differently than ISCC-NBS does, and placement of closely related colors that fall into different categories? For example,   Olive Drab is described in various terms in its section of Olive (color); the ISCC-NBS classifcation is strong yellow green. Two colors based on newer US Army standards,   Olive Drab Camouflage and   Olive Drab #7, also appear in the same section, with respective ISCC-NBS descriptors grayish olive and dark olive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to use the ISCC-NBS classification, we should stick rigidly to it and make that clear in each article lead. This issue with olive drab being used as a name for different colours in different places is the very thing a standard categorisation scheme is meant to solve. The colour should go in the article or section that corresponds to its ISCC-NBS block. Both grayish olive and dark olive will live on the Olive (color) page so there is no big problem there. If we want to feature someone else's version of olive drab that does not belong on the Olive page, then a see also from that page is the way to handle it. And there certainly are other versions of olive drab. The British Army paints much of its equipment to British Standard 381c colour   #298 Olive Drab. I once came across a company (naming no names) making equipment for the British Army, but inexperienced in that field, who assumed that Olive Drab meant the RAL color, a standard widely used in Europe,   RAL 6022, which our article calls "Brown olive", but on many English language RAL charts, eg [6], is described as "Olive Drab". There are so many colour names out there that any attempt to group variations by names disparate organisations and manufacturers have used would be bound to throw up anomalies. There is a fundamental policy reason why we should not group by name. That principle is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. SpinningSpark

The Color Names Dictionary has various colors (from miscellaneous industry catalogs etc.) named “olive drab” listed under the following ISCC–NBS categories: moderate olive brown, dark olive brown, dark olive, grayish olive, olive gray, moderate yellow green (this one is "drab olive"). There is clearly no precise single idea of what color “olive drab” should mean. But if you want some definition, the X11 and HTML lists are pretty terrible sources in my opinion. pages 55–59 –jacobolus (t) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"cyan" as a color term appears to predate the the four color process that would eventually become CMYK. References I checked gave 1879 for "cyan blue" and a little later for "cyan" by itself but couldn't find the use that the referenced back to. I checked contemporary dictionaries, such as the 1886 Webster's (see page 328), which while not yet including "cyan" or "cyan blue" have "cyanean" and "cyanometer". Speaking of magenta seems like https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/121 might be a good source for that article. PaleAqua (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Being able to find cyan as a colour term in the 19th century is beside the point. The real question is was it being used as a basic colour category rather than a particular colour? I can find references to banana as a colour [7] (apparently it was a new tint in 1891 fashion) but that does not mean we should use it as a basic category. SpinningSpark 13:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to comments that they were not generic color terms and only defined in relation to CMYK. I agree neither cyan nor magenta should be used as basic color categories. Many of the sources I'v seen have "cyan" as a "blue" color, and "magenta" as a "red" color. As for ISCC-NBS, I agree it one of the better the option we have for categorizing color terms. Having a clear reliable source based approach continues to be my preference. PaleAqua (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The word cyan (κύανος) is an Ancient Greek word for “blue”. I am not suggesting that it was never before used as a color name in English, but as far as I can tell though, neither “cyan” nor “magenta” was in common currency in the 19th century as a generic color word. They were picked out as jargon alternatives to “blue” and “red” to describe these kinds of printer inks because calling them “red” and “blue” would be confusing, since these are noticeably different from the unique hues red and blue. (Similarly, it was in my opinion a mistake to call RGB display primaries “red”, “green”, and “blue”, because this also causes significant confusion as these colors are also not all that close to the unique hues red, green, blue. Using ISCC-NBS categories as clear descriptive names, these primaries are R = “orangish red”, G = “yellowish green”, and B = “purplish blue”, but I think it would have been better to find/invent jargon names for them.) Wikipedia trying to turn those ink colors into generic color categories is at least approaching “original research” / violating a “neutral point of view”. –jacobolus (t) 16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Another comment Mylonas, Stockman, and Griffin (2018) "Basic Colour Terms are indispensable" suggests a number of other important papers to look at about color terms, which may be helpful for anyone looking for reliable sources.
  • Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969/1999). Basic color terms : their universality and evolution. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  • Boynton, R. M., & Olson, C. X. (1987). "Locating basic colors in the OSA space". Color Research & Application, 12(2), 94–105.
  • Lindsey, D. T., & Brown, A. M. (2014). "The color lexicon of American English". Journal of Vision, 14(2), 17.
  • Mylonas, D., & MacDonald, L. (2016). "Augmenting basic colour terms in English". Color Research & Application, 41(1), 32–42.
  • Gibson, E., et al. (2017). "Color naming across languages reflects color use". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201619666.

  –jacobolus (t) 03:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I got a bit distracted and didn't realise this discussion was still continuing. I just read through it earlier tonight. Coincidentally, I did spend 2 days last week cleaning up the color term article that includes discussion on definition of basic color terms. The article did and still does rely heavily on Berlin and Kay, but I don't hear much criticism on their use of basic color terms (only on their conclusions on linguistic relativity). Important in the color term article is the distinction between colors in natural language and color systems. It seems like most of the discussion here has been focused on finding a system (or making our own system), but the definitions of 11 basic color terms of Berlin and Kay seems like an obvious foundation. Contrary to my original post in support of cyan/teal, it is not (yet) at basic color term level. ISCC-NBS has the same 11 basic color terms and adds olive and yellow-green. This makes sense if you want to base your system on being more perceptually uniform (there are waaay more colors included in 'green' than 'orange', so divvying up green makes sense), but for wikipedia's purposes, that shouldn't factor in. Having yellow-green and olive achieve the same status as red and blue defies the natural lexicology of color. It may be worth looking into some of the other references you've listed here, to see if they have good arguments for deviating from the Berlin/Kay stage VII basic color terms. Curran919 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  If we want to have “shades of X” articles (under whatever name), it would still be helpful to include those in-between categories for the sake of keeping lists a bit more manageable. Having a single category “green” including every color with hue from say Munsell 3GY all the way to 10BG gets incredibly unwieldy, and the colors near the edges are increasingly unlikely to be categorized as “green” by typical English speakers with normal vision. (I even think the ISCC–NBS scheme would have benefitted from adding one more “blue-green” hue category in addition to greenish blue and bluish green; note this category still wouldn’t include cyan, which would still be considered “greenish blue”.)

  However, even if we used ISCC–NBS categories they wouldn’t necessarily have to each be a separate article. I could imagine e.g. a “shades of green” article containing separate top-level sections for {yellow-green, olive green, yellowish green, green, and bluish green}, while a “shades of yellow” article could contain top-level sections for {orange–yellow, yellowish brown, yellow, olive brown, olive, greenish yellow}.

  If we do decide to use ISCC–NBS categories for this, we should (a) try to make a good software tool for looking up ISCC–NBS category based on other color coordinates which includes implementing a good inverse Munsell Renotations lookup, (b) make [or take from the NBS book] some better diagrams showing how the ISCC-NBS regions are spatially organized (in Munsell space), (c) look at the sources of the Color Names Dictionary (Ridgway, Taylor/Knoche/Granville, Maerz/Paul, Plochere, etc.) and try to extract exact colorimetric/Munsell coordinates corresponding to their color names and save those in a publicly accessible data file somewhere (e.g. in a github repository), and possibly try to find other “reliable” sources linking colorimetric coordinates to color names from ethnographic research, natural sources (birds/flowers/etc.), industry, or whatever. The list of e.g. X11 and HTML/CSS colors is garbage from a WP:RS and WP:NPOV perspective, made by incompetent amateurs who did little if any research. –jacobolus (t) 01:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would say using Berlin and Kay's basic color terms to determine which articles there are and ISCC-NBS divisions (and primary subdivisions) as organizational elements inside those articles takes the best of both worlds... if that's what you meant. I'm more concerned with the high level organization of these articles and designing to avoid bloat, which it seems has been a problem for 20 years in this article space. I'm not really concerned with the precision or comprehensiveness of the colors therein. Curran919 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)