![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This overlaps a lot with cerulean, but technically cerulean blue is a pigment with a specific shade, while "cerulean" is a broader term for sky color (according to OED). So I can't make up my mind whether we should merge the two, and if so, under which name. Stan 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, after snooping around a bit, I'm changing my vote on this. The dictionaries which have distinct entries for both terms (including an unabridged I have here at home) seem to universally break down as noted by Stan above: that is, that "cerulean blue" is a specific pigment of blue color while "cerulean" is a color ranging from greenish blue to blue. Therefore, it seems to me that these should be separate articles.
This is oddly affirmed by wiki itself, as cerulean is linked by color; while cerulean blue is linked by pigment (The link within "pigment" predated my cerulean blue article; all I did was start the article.)
So I think this is what should happen: The pigment references in "cerulean" (that it is a pigment and items related to its being a pigment) should be moved here, and vice versa, making cerulean into an article specifically on the color (as in the beige article) and this article specifically on the pigment. The articles can then be cross-linked. CoyneT 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is the word "permanent" linked to the article on fugitive pigments when it means the exact opposite? Do we not have an article on permanent pigments? (Obviously not.) -- Phil | Talk June 29, 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Let me start with the disclaimer. I am not an artist, color junkie, or even a competent computer user. Now for the message: Those color coordinates seem off to me. The color at http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/aboutus.asp?idArticle=65&idPressRelease=52 is closer to what is in my head.
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This overlaps a lot with cerulean, but technically cerulean blue is a pigment with a specific shade, while "cerulean" is a broader term for sky color (according to OED). So I can't make up my mind whether we should merge the two, and if so, under which name. Stan 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, after snooping around a bit, I'm changing my vote on this. The dictionaries which have distinct entries for both terms (including an unabridged I have here at home) seem to universally break down as noted by Stan above: that is, that "cerulean blue" is a specific pigment of blue color while "cerulean" is a color ranging from greenish blue to blue. Therefore, it seems to me that these should be separate articles.
This is oddly affirmed by wiki itself, as cerulean is linked by color; while cerulean blue is linked by pigment (The link within "pigment" predated my cerulean blue article; all I did was start the article.)
So I think this is what should happen: The pigment references in "cerulean" (that it is a pigment and items related to its being a pigment) should be moved here, and vice versa, making cerulean into an article specifically on the color (as in the beige article) and this article specifically on the pigment. The articles can then be cross-linked. CoyneT 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is the word "permanent" linked to the article on fugitive pigments when it means the exact opposite? Do we not have an article on permanent pigments? (Obviously not.) -- Phil | Talk June 29, 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Let me start with the disclaimer. I am not an artist, color junkie, or even a competent computer user. Now for the message: Those color coordinates seem off to me. The color at http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/aboutus.asp?idArticle=65&idPressRelease=52 is closer to what is in my head.