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. |
The green chosen for the info box looks very blue to me, at least on my calibrated displays. I saw the PDF linked but am wondering why we should use that color for the main sample? To be honest, I still would like to move the color info boxes away from being about a specific color coordinate to being about the abstract color. PaleAqua ( talk) 04:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever taken a prism and focused a beam of sunlight through it? The color in the green part of the spectrum looks exactly like X11 Green. Also, if you check the color coordinates on the CIE chromaticity diagram on the outer edge just inside the horseshoe shape in the central part of the green part of the spectrum with your computer's digital color meter, you will see that it registers as the color #00FF00. The color you are attempting to foist upon us as "green" is really a medium saturated bluish green similar to the color emerald. Keraunos ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I again changed red and blue back to their normal coordinates. I'm leaving green unchanged for now because this is where the discussion is going on. Keraunos ( talk) 06:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You can see that the green light in the photograph at right of the additive colors showing the combination of red, green, and blue lights is synonomous with X11 green. Keraunos ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Green | |
---|---|
Spectral coordinates | |
Wavelength | 520–570 nm |
Frequency | ~575–525 THz |
Common connotations | |
nature, growth, hope, youth, sickness, health, Islam, spring, Saint Patrick's Day, money (US), and envy [1] [2] [3] | |
Color coordinates | |
Hex triplet | #008000 (HTML/CSS) #00FF00 (X11) |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
Source |
HTML/CSS
[4] X11 color names [5] |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
For a long time--for more than a year until two and a half weeks ago--the title area at the top of the green color box was left blank (white) as a compromise because people had kept changing the color back and forth from X11 green to HTML/CSS green. The color squares colored various tones of green in the image within the color box were used to represent green. The values for both X11 green and HTML/CSS green were displayed under the image in the color box. Keraunos ( talk) 04:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we go back to this original color box as a compromise. Keraunos ( talk) 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here above I’ve plotted the brightest possible colors within the sRGB gamut for each of 40 munsell system hues, and integer values between 2 and 9, like those used in the world color survey. I put white dots where there are dots in this plot taken from Sturges & Whitfield 1995, and black dots near where the X11/CSS color names put red/yellow/green/blue. As can clearly be seen, the X11/CSS color "red" is not too far from the hue of "unique red" or "focal red", but the X11 color blue is too purple, the X11 color green is too yellow, and the X11 color yellow is slightly too green. I have no particular opinion on the proper lightness at which to display each color; that should probably depend on doing some more research. I haven’t read too many papers/books/etc. about color naming, and so am admittedly no particular expert at it. I don’t think we can legitimately leave the X11/CSS colors as the representatives for these color names though. Their sources are "reliable sources" only as concerns the web, but not as concerns color naming (they were computer engineers just making something up quickly, off the top of their heads). – jacobolus (t) 01:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole color system on which the colors displayed in Wikipedia are based is really simple and elegant. The color system used in Wikipedia to display colors is based on the RGB color wheel which is the physical expression of RGB color space. There are 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel at intervals of 30 degrees. I have listed these 12 major colors below. Any color can be made by combining one of these 12 colors with each other or with an achromatic color such as black, gray, or white. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I know that only three colors are needed. The other colors are there for aesthetic purposes and to define the relationships between the primary three and the other nine. Keraunos ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The 12 major colors of the color wheel
The 12 major colors of the color wheel, at 30 degree intervals on the HSV color wheel (RGB color wheel) are the following: red (Color #FF0000 (0 degrees or 360 degrees), orange (Color #FF7F00) (30 degrees), yellow (Color#FFFF00) (60 degrees), chartreuse green (Color#7FFF00) (90 degrees), green (Color#00FF00) (120 degrees), spring green (Color#00FF7F) (150 degrees), cyan (Color#00FFFF) (180 degrees), azure (Color#007FFF) (210 degrees), blue (Color#0000FF) (240 degrees), violet (Color#7F00FF) (270 degrees), magenta (Color#FF00FF) (300 degrees), and rose (Color#FF007F) (330 degrees). This constitutes the complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary color names. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The hsv values of the colors displayed on Wikipedia are based on this system, notably the h (hue) value of each color is based on its position on the RGB color wheel or its place within or on the surface of the color sphere in relation to the 12 major colors on the equator of the color sphere (the h (hue) value of an achromatic color on the axis of the color sphere connecting the north and south poles is left blank because achromatic colors have no hue).
If Jacobolus wants to set up an alternate color system, then he can create a Wikipedia article about it and include the chart below within the article and give us an explanation of how his alternate color system would work and his sources. But there is no need to disturb the present Wikipedia color system outlined above which is so simple, elegant, and serviceable. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There are apparently already Wikipedia articles on the alternate color system Jacobolus is talking about-- unique hues and Natural Color System. This system is based on what are called the four psychological primaries (red, yellow, green, and blue) rather than the three additive primaries, (red, green, and blue) of RGB color space color system that is presently used by Wikipedia, is the basis of the web colors, and which is displayed on the RGB color wheel above which I downloaded. All Jacobolus has to do is to download the above chart into one of those two articles ( unique hues probably would be best, since that is a short article that needs expansion) and elaborate on his new color system, more fully explaining it and adding his sources. Keraunos ( talk) 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
But trying to mix the RGB color system, the psychological primaries system ("Natural color system") or the old RYB color model together into a single system is like comparing apples, oranges and cherries. Keraunos ( talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the coming weeks, I’m going to try to build and put online a javascript color conversion tool that will hopefully provide a useful interface for transforming colors coordinates from one system to another; I think it should be possible to stick in values in whatever space, and get out values in CIELAB (D50), CIECAM02, sRGB, Munsell renotation coordinates, and maybe ISCC–NBS name. Maybe we could even work up a better color infobox template, and set it up to spit out mediawiki code... I’ve long been unhappy with the current infoboxes. No promises, &c., but does anyone have thoughts about the idea? – jacobolus (t) 03:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely. There is no use having a color box if it doesn't show the color. That is the whole point of having a color box. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think that the area showing the color should be larger as it is in the Spanish Wikipedia Spanish Wikipedia color box: or the French Wikipedia French Wikipedia color box:. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think the color boxes should look like the French Wikipedia color boxes so there is a larger area in which to display the color and then you can get more of a sense of what the color looks like. Keraunos ( talk) 06:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think the color box should look like the upper version in this Infobox testcases page, i.e., with a larger area to display the color: Infobox color test case with larger area in the color box for displaying the color:. This would bring the color boxes in line with the larger color display areas of the Spanish and French Wikipedias. Keraunos ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) It's best not to make the color box too complicated as you have outlined above. It's better to keep it simple like it is now and put additional information in the article. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That is absurd. There has to be a space to display the color itself on the title bar and a place below that to put its hex code and hsv values. Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of having a color box is in order to display the color. There is no use having a color box if it doesn't display the color. Keraunos ( talk) 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as the infobox displays a representation of the color, then I am happy! All the other representations are icing on the cake. However, as I mentioned above, I think the color display area should be larger as in the top example here: Infobox color test case with larger area in the color box for displaying the color:.
Question: Jacobolus, why is it that the psychological primary color and the CIECAM02 color is the same in the case of yellow, but the psychological primary color and the CIECAM02 colors are different in the cases of green, red, and blue?
I was just wondering about this. Keraunos ( talk) 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright everyone, I spent some time figuring out how to reasonably interpolate Munsell colors, and made up a bigger image showing the color at max chroma for each hue and value (my code is horribly un-optimized, so it took my computer about a half hour to render.. eep). Hopefully this helps demonstrate why I wasn’t happy with using X11/CSS values for these color names:
The “cross-cultural foci” are from MacLaury 1997, and were based on color chips at 40 hues, so they're a pretty rough guess (that’s 25 pixels, horizontally). The location of the NCS unique hues is taken from the Agoston book, and were to the nearest 1 Munsell hue unit (10 pixels). The other points are accurate to within a couple pixels. – jacobolus (t) 00:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
6G 5 / 7.61 (#008B66)
#008B66
HTML/CSS color, sadly unable to use color management in current browsers.
#008B66
I thought this quotation was cute: “Once upon a time, someone chose 16 full and half coordinate RGB primaries as the default color-map for early personal computer video cards, perhaps planning to implement full color using a halftone-like method. Instead, these were used as pure colors, often resulting in garish displays. This bad practice was made worse by using common color names to identify them; worse still by putting these in the Windows color-dictionary; and worse still by codifying these common color names (with RGB primaries) in HTML-3.2 and HTML-4.0, two of the most widely used standards in the world.” [...] “The development of HTML has embraced an ignorance of color science. Will the pervasiveness of HTML change our color lexicon” from <http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Color/Dictionaries>. – jacobolus (t) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Two Questions
1. After you (Jacobolus) replaced my color swatches, the color swatches you inserted do not register on my computer. Jacobolus, you still did not answer my question. Why is the yellow CIECAM02 color the SAME as the psychological primary color and the green, red, and blue CIECAM02 colors DIFFERENT (darker) than their CIECAM02 colors? Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2. My other question, Jacobolus, is what is the difference between the CIECAM02 colors and the four psychological primary colors? What are the CIECAM02 colors representing that is not already represented in the psychological primary colors? Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You now have THREE different shades of green: Green (psychological primary), Green (NCS), and Green (CIACAM02). As far as I can tell, they are three different attempts to represent the psychological primary green in the RYGB color system (the four primary color psychological primary color system based on the opponent process theory of vision).
(Please do not change these color swatches since the other method of entering the color swatches you were using doesn’t work.)
Green (Psychological Primary) (Green (NCS))(#009246)
#009246
Green (NCS)(6G 5 / 7.61) (#008B66)
#008B66
CIECAM02 Green (#00BA85)
#00BA85
You still haven’t explained what CIECAM02 IS. WHAT IS IT? What does it represent? What does it represent that the Natural Color System or the darker Psychological Primary in the Wikipedia color chart doesn’t represent? Keraunos ( talk) 04:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 1080-R (#C40233)
#C40233
NCS S 0580-Y (#FFD300)
#FFD300
NCS S 1565-G (#00A368 )
#00A368
NCS S 1565-B (#0088BF)
#0088BF
It still doesn't work. All I see is a vertical black bar. Keraunos ( talk) 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the four NCS primary colors displayed in those four swatches above are an EXCELLENT representation of the four psychological primary colors! Keraunos ( talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 1080-R (#C40233)
#C40233
NCS S 1080-Y (#ECBD00 )
#ECBD00
NCS S 2060-G (#009F6B )
#009F6B
NCS S 2060-B (#0087BD)
#0087BD
Jacobolus, when you again refined the hex codes for the Psychological Primary Colors:, your forgot to change the rgb values to reflect the hex code changes. I just edited the image description and did that for you. Best wishes, Keraunos ( talk) 06:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 0580-Y (#FFD300)
#FFD300
I think the original yellow, at right, is better. I think the new yellow you changed the old yellow to is too dark. But I think the other three you changed are fine. Keraunos ( talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
VMS (and everyone else): part of our issue w/r/t differences about green may be differences in monitor set-up, etc., but a decent part might also just be variation in our personal understandings of unique green. Here’s what Kuehni has to say about it in his 2003 book Color Space and its Divisions:
So anyway, it’s very possible that my unique green and yours differ substantially, and any color we pick is going to seem too yellow to one of us or too blue to another, even under identical viewing conditions. (7.0G though, which Kuehni refers to as the latest best estimate as of 2003, is even bluer than the color samples I’ve been showing above, which are at 6.0G, and 2.5 BG as estimated in one study is quite a bit bluer still.) – jacobolus (t) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 2060-G (#009F6B)
#009F6B
Randall Munroe performed a color survey and published the results at http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ and at http://xkcd.com/color/rgb/. Is this data suitable to be used for citations? -- Humanist Geek ( talk) 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to change the yellow in the psychological primary color chart back to the slightly lighter version within a few days since you said you had no objection to that. Then within the next week or so I'm going to create a suggested template for displaying the various versions of the primary colors. However, the RGB (X11) colors have to continue to be the one of the primary primary color sources, along with the CMYK colors and your four psychological primaries. The ISCC-NBS colors are totally useless for primary colors because they are too dark. Keraunos ( talk) 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Ultraviolet is up on WP:CFD for renaming, or splitting, or something else (that's the nomination). As UV is a colour that is visible to some animals, I thought I'd let you know. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 04:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Some other project members might be interested in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variations of blue. – jacobolus (t) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way Jacobolus, if you could vote a definite keep for the Variations of blue article that would be helpful as we will need that later. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Jacobolus, I think you have done a wonderful job in the section in the color green on color vision and colorimetry. That is pretty much what I was going to say so the next step is for you to create similar sections for red, yellow, and blue. I’ll let you take care of that. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An example green
Munsell 2.5G 5/9
#088C56
I was wondering, when we put in the Munsell colors, wouldn’t be better to use the 10 or 5 Munsell colors instead of the 2.5G Munsell color you used in the green section on color vision and colorimetry? Does 2.5G Munsell mean it is halfway between 10GY and 5G? Do you have a way to calculate the complements of the 10 or 5 Munsell colors?
The 10 or 5 colors would be more to the center of the red, yellow, green, blue, or purple Munsell colors. Do you think it would be better to use the Munsell 5 or the Munsell 10 colors? Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Munsell colors are approximate because they have been adjusted to remain within the RGB gamut. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Munsell 5 Colors:
Munsell 5P Purple (#9F00C5)
#9F00C5
Munsell 5B Blue (#0093AF)
#0093AF
Munsell 5G Green (#00A877)
#00A877
Munsell 5Y Yellow (#EFCC00)
#EFCC00
Munsell 5R Red (#F2003C)
#F2003C
Munsell 10 Colors:
Munsell 10P (#0082B2)
#B900A6
Munsell 10B (#0082B2)
#0082B2
Munsell 10G (#00A78A)
#00A78A
Munsell 10Y (#F0EA00)
#F0EA00
Munsell 10R (#EE82EE)
#F85900
The Munsell 5 colors look better to me. Keraunos ( talk) 03:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone see the purpose of this template, with its odd assortment of "major colors", and variant definition of "secondary" that conflicts with the linked article? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed deleting it, so either way, opinions would be useful at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:List of Colors. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Due to some people not understanding the list template. I am all for changing the template into a Color topic template instead. Here's sort of example of what it would look like.
Jhenderson777 ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
vs
The toolserver link catches every single page tagged with the project banner. The Special: link only catches the pages that are mentioned on the project-page itself. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering about this color, there's not much information about it in Wikipedia. It's used for high visibility, most notably in tennis balls. It looks more yellow than green-yellow... I don't know what's the correct place to write about it. If someone's up for writing it, now's a perfect time because the US Open tournament is underway. ;) Wipe ( talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Color articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
All the articles chosen look fine to me as excellent choices. Keraunos ( talk) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are the new color displays I have prepared, based on the suggestion of VMS Mosaic, for the colors red, yellow, green, and blue to resolve the ongoing dispute since May 2010 regarding which colors to use to represent the four psychological primary colors. I am following VMS Mosaic’s suggestion to blank out the color boxes and provide samples of the various colors in different color systems. This solution should satisfy everyone. This way, each person can decide for themselves which color they choose to regard as red, yellow, green, or blue.
Please leave your comments regarding this new primary colors display as I would like to install these new color displays within the next week. Keraunos ( talk) 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Link displaying the new color displays: New Color Displays for the colors Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue:
This is a good idea, but the execution takes up a really large amount of space, which makes it hard to compare. The infoboxes for colors are in particular really huge; it should be possible to consolidate all the variants to a much greater extent.
Other notes:
– jacobolus (t) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe it would be a major mistake for a web based encyclopedia to not include the web (HTML/CSS) color definitions in the applicable color articles. The HTML/CSS colors are what one sees when a color is specified on the web. If nothing else the reader can see how "wrong" (personally, I think the HTML green is the only one suggested which even comes close to accurately representing green) the web colors are compared to the "expert's" opinions of the "true" colors. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Jacobolus, someone has already changed the green in the color box in the green article to HTML color #008000 from the color code for green (NCS). This is an example of why we need to install these color displays, so as to solve this problem once and for all. Keraunos ( talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.
I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒ DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
PDFs of all of these can be downloaded.
– jacobolus (t) 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Our long-time color contributor User:Keraunos continues to march to the beat of a different drummer, having no interest in WP:V, WP:RS, and consensus style issues. He has restored "in culture" and such trivia sections that contain exactly zero supported items (and I'm pretty generous in interpreting "supported", meaning that if there's a link to an article that even mentions the color, I'll usually accept that in lieu of a source, at least temporarily). And he puts in his favorite html "strip charts" that we long ago deprecated and removed from every place we could find them (some may still exist, since they don't use a template that would make them findable). I reverted a bunch of his "restores" today. Any support for continuing to push back on his contributions? Dicklyon ( talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I read on the Internet that by the year 2020, because of the operation of Moore's Law, it will be possible to have a one page Wikipedia article about everyone in the world! Last year, I got a half a terabyte backup hard drive for my computer. By 2020, the average personal computer hard drive will probably have a petabyte of memory! So there will be plenty of room for a lot of new information. Keraunos ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
In the context of a regular encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Brittanica, it would probably be considered trivial to have like Wikipedia does articles on just about every major film, TV show, comic book, and video game that ever existed. But I think it is wonderful that all of this information is available on Wikipedia. Keraunos ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, according to this chart, if Moore's Law holds we'll only reach hard drive capacities of an average of 100 terabytes by 2020. If Moore's Law holds beyond 2020, it will take until about 2025 to reach an average hard drive capacity of one petabyte. Increase in Hard Drive Capacity Since 1980: Keraunos ( talk) 13:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with adding spurious unencyclopedic unsourced information is not that it takes up too much space, but that the Wikipedia project can only be trusted and useful if it applies some standards. It is difficult enough to maintain an encyclopedia even sticking to facts which can be verified: articles still need to be carefully written and tended to be readable and relevant. We should strive to use the best and most authoritative sources, to be careful with our definitions, and so on. At the point where any mention of anything by some character in a novel or TV show is considered relevant, articles balloon quickly out of control, and turn into unmanaged and unmanageable messes. Instead of arguing about which trivialities should be kept and which abandoned, it would be a much better use of everyone's effort to try to abide by the clearly described policies in WP:RS and WP:V and so on, and then do the actual hard research required to write clear and comprehensive articles about each subject. -- jacobolus (t) 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'm late to this discussion. I just came here from "Ecru" (didn't know what it was before now), and I saw something like:
Now, an RGB triplet without any reference standard is meaningless; I'm assuming HSV is similar. Equally, web triplets are arbitrary.
An L*a*b* specification doesn't have that issue. An image with an ICC profile attached doesn't have that issue (at least outside the cyan region :-).
Can we at least agree to list which RGB model is being assumed, provide the L*a*b* co-ordinates, and indicate if the color is "out of gamut" on sRGB?
(I know, this doesn't begin to address the question of "Which shade of green gets the "Green" standard label?". I know paint stores have that big book of color samples and shades that cover all the visible color range. Can that be used as a reference standard?)
Keybounce ( talk) 02:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Input needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine (color). -- Noleander ( talk) 06:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated a few colo[u]r articles for deletion. All suggestions welcomed!
bobrayner ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm no expert on colour, but articles like
Persimmon (color) are quite worrying. I've come across a lot of articles like this, where the source for the name is one catalogue out of many - perhaps just one entry in a sample book - but this source does not actually give RGB/HSV values so the author has got their own values by looking at some photo on the internet. It seems unlikely, to me, that one can get an accurate colour from one photograph out of many, as the exact colour in the photograph will be so dependent on lighting, post-processing, and of course the ripeness of that particular persimmon. Although there are areas where editors seen keen to fill in empty fields with the first value they can get their hands on, I think that an encyclopædia should not give exact values for something if the exact value is not actually known or knowable. What do the colour experts think?
bobrayner (
talk)
13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
On a different note, I've found a very large number of colours which are sourced like this. The editor decided to write something about "Medium Candy Apple Red", browsed through google images, and turned up this picture of a toy car. The toy car is not even labelled with "this is a Medium Candy Apple Red car", it's not from a reliable source, and of course you certainly can't get reliable RGB/HSV values from a photo of a toy car which has been subjected to unknown post-processing. Nonetheless, large volumes of this stuff gets added to the encyclopædia. bobrayner ( talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nearly finished.
Any suggestions / comments? What needs fixing next? bobrayner ( talk) 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think two things can be learned from this discussion
Even though BobRayner is technically correct about WP:V, I believe that he has misinterpreted this discussion as a mandate to ax a lot of content. Per policies such as WP:BEFORE, when an AFD or a large BOLD removal of content is done, the nominator/removal should try to see if sources can be found. I believe Bob has not made that attempt, and is too removal-happy. Keraunos and others point out that such sources are pretty easily accessible. So instead of axing content, perhaps Bob should try to source some of that content Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A second batch of colour neologisms/ dicdefs has been nominated for deletion:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner ( talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Indigo is color #4B0082, but in the Blue footer template Template:Shades of blue it uses #6F00FF for "Indigo". That seems wrong. I dont doubt that 6F00FF is a fine color, but the template should not be using the name "Indigo" (with a link to Indigo) since that causes WP to give two different meanings to one color-name. Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 18:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If you ask me, all the “shades of...” footer templates should be scrapped entirely as they are redundant and hard to keep in sync with color articles and the “list of colors”, etc., and the color name articles in general should be consolidated (into maybe 15 or 20 prominent color categories) since most of them are stubs with no potential for further growth. Any of those categories which currently has a “shades of” template might be a decent candidate for a consolidated article. At some point user:Wrad put a great deal of effort into cleaning up Green and made a Variations of Green article as a sort of overflow bin for all the color list trivia. The same should be done with other broad color categories. Independent articles could exist for color names which are actually notable (e.g. International Klein Blue), etc. – jacobolus (t) 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the articles on the shades of blue/red, etc are named Variations of blue, Variations of red, etc. That doesn't seem like the best phrasing: "Shades of blue" etc seems much more natural and concise. I looked in the Talk archives, and all I could find is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Color/Archive_4#Move_to_Variations.2FVarieties_of_... ... which doesn't really say much. Can anyone explain the choice of the word "Variations"? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that one of perbang.dk's sources is en.wikipedia. It has even inherited some of en.wikipedia's dubious lists of Crayola colours. Should perbang.dk be trusted as a source for RGB values? bobrayner ( talk) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
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. |
diction
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OED
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Islam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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. |
The green chosen for the info box looks very blue to me, at least on my calibrated displays. I saw the PDF linked but am wondering why we should use that color for the main sample? To be honest, I still would like to move the color info boxes away from being about a specific color coordinate to being about the abstract color. PaleAqua ( talk) 04:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever taken a prism and focused a beam of sunlight through it? The color in the green part of the spectrum looks exactly like X11 Green. Also, if you check the color coordinates on the CIE chromaticity diagram on the outer edge just inside the horseshoe shape in the central part of the green part of the spectrum with your computer's digital color meter, you will see that it registers as the color #00FF00. The color you are attempting to foist upon us as "green" is really a medium saturated bluish green similar to the color emerald. Keraunos ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I again changed red and blue back to their normal coordinates. I'm leaving green unchanged for now because this is where the discussion is going on. Keraunos ( talk) 06:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You can see that the green light in the photograph at right of the additive colors showing the combination of red, green, and blue lights is synonomous with X11 green. Keraunos ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Green | |
---|---|
Spectral coordinates | |
Wavelength | 520–570 nm |
Frequency | ~575–525 THz |
Common connotations | |
nature, growth, hope, youth, sickness, health, Islam, spring, Saint Patrick's Day, money (US), and envy [1] [2] [3] | |
Color coordinates | |
Hex triplet | #008000 (HTML/CSS) #00FF00 (X11) |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (Lua error in Module:Color at line 24: Invalid hexadecimal color 008000 (HTML/CSS)<br />#00FF00 (X11).) |
Source |
HTML/CSS
[4] X11 color names [5] |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
For a long time--for more than a year until two and a half weeks ago--the title area at the top of the green color box was left blank (white) as a compromise because people had kept changing the color back and forth from X11 green to HTML/CSS green. The color squares colored various tones of green in the image within the color box were used to represent green. The values for both X11 green and HTML/CSS green were displayed under the image in the color box. Keraunos ( talk) 04:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we go back to this original color box as a compromise. Keraunos ( talk) 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here above I’ve plotted the brightest possible colors within the sRGB gamut for each of 40 munsell system hues, and integer values between 2 and 9, like those used in the world color survey. I put white dots where there are dots in this plot taken from Sturges & Whitfield 1995, and black dots near where the X11/CSS color names put red/yellow/green/blue. As can clearly be seen, the X11/CSS color "red" is not too far from the hue of "unique red" or "focal red", but the X11 color blue is too purple, the X11 color green is too yellow, and the X11 color yellow is slightly too green. I have no particular opinion on the proper lightness at which to display each color; that should probably depend on doing some more research. I haven’t read too many papers/books/etc. about color naming, and so am admittedly no particular expert at it. I don’t think we can legitimately leave the X11/CSS colors as the representatives for these color names though. Their sources are "reliable sources" only as concerns the web, but not as concerns color naming (they were computer engineers just making something up quickly, off the top of their heads). – jacobolus (t) 01:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole color system on which the colors displayed in Wikipedia are based is really simple and elegant. The color system used in Wikipedia to display colors is based on the RGB color wheel which is the physical expression of RGB color space. There are 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel at intervals of 30 degrees. I have listed these 12 major colors below. Any color can be made by combining one of these 12 colors with each other or with an achromatic color such as black, gray, or white. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I know that only three colors are needed. The other colors are there for aesthetic purposes and to define the relationships between the primary three and the other nine. Keraunos ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The 12 major colors of the color wheel
The 12 major colors of the color wheel, at 30 degree intervals on the HSV color wheel (RGB color wheel) are the following: red (Color #FF0000 (0 degrees or 360 degrees), orange (Color #FF7F00) (30 degrees), yellow (Color#FFFF00) (60 degrees), chartreuse green (Color#7FFF00) (90 degrees), green (Color#00FF00) (120 degrees), spring green (Color#00FF7F) (150 degrees), cyan (Color#00FFFF) (180 degrees), azure (Color#007FFF) (210 degrees), blue (Color#0000FF) (240 degrees), violet (Color#7F00FF) (270 degrees), magenta (Color#FF00FF) (300 degrees), and rose (Color#FF007F) (330 degrees). This constitutes the complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary color names. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The hsv values of the colors displayed on Wikipedia are based on this system, notably the h (hue) value of each color is based on its position on the RGB color wheel or its place within or on the surface of the color sphere in relation to the 12 major colors on the equator of the color sphere (the h (hue) value of an achromatic color on the axis of the color sphere connecting the north and south poles is left blank because achromatic colors have no hue).
If Jacobolus wants to set up an alternate color system, then he can create a Wikipedia article about it and include the chart below within the article and give us an explanation of how his alternate color system would work and his sources. But there is no need to disturb the present Wikipedia color system outlined above which is so simple, elegant, and serviceable. Keraunos ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There are apparently already Wikipedia articles on the alternate color system Jacobolus is talking about-- unique hues and Natural Color System. This system is based on what are called the four psychological primaries (red, yellow, green, and blue) rather than the three additive primaries, (red, green, and blue) of RGB color space color system that is presently used by Wikipedia, is the basis of the web colors, and which is displayed on the RGB color wheel above which I downloaded. All Jacobolus has to do is to download the above chart into one of those two articles ( unique hues probably would be best, since that is a short article that needs expansion) and elaborate on his new color system, more fully explaining it and adding his sources. Keraunos ( talk) 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
But trying to mix the RGB color system, the psychological primaries system ("Natural color system") or the old RYB color model together into a single system is like comparing apples, oranges and cherries. Keraunos ( talk) 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the coming weeks, I’m going to try to build and put online a javascript color conversion tool that will hopefully provide a useful interface for transforming colors coordinates from one system to another; I think it should be possible to stick in values in whatever space, and get out values in CIELAB (D50), CIECAM02, sRGB, Munsell renotation coordinates, and maybe ISCC–NBS name. Maybe we could even work up a better color infobox template, and set it up to spit out mediawiki code... I’ve long been unhappy with the current infoboxes. No promises, &c., but does anyone have thoughts about the idea? – jacobolus (t) 03:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree completely. There is no use having a color box if it doesn't show the color. That is the whole point of having a color box. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think that the area showing the color should be larger as it is in the Spanish Wikipedia Spanish Wikipedia color box: or the French Wikipedia French Wikipedia color box:. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think the color boxes should look like the French Wikipedia color boxes so there is a larger area in which to display the color and then you can get more of a sense of what the color looks like. Keraunos ( talk) 06:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I think the color box should look like the upper version in this Infobox testcases page, i.e., with a larger area to display the color: Infobox color test case with larger area in the color box for displaying the color:. This would bring the color boxes in line with the larger color display areas of the Spanish and French Wikipedias. Keraunos ( talk) 03:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) It's best not to make the color box too complicated as you have outlined above. It's better to keep it simple like it is now and put additional information in the article. Keraunos ( talk) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That is absurd. There has to be a space to display the color itself on the title bar and a place below that to put its hex code and hsv values. Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of having a color box is in order to display the color. There is no use having a color box if it doesn't display the color. Keraunos ( talk) 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as the infobox displays a representation of the color, then I am happy! All the other representations are icing on the cake. However, as I mentioned above, I think the color display area should be larger as in the top example here: Infobox color test case with larger area in the color box for displaying the color:.
Question: Jacobolus, why is it that the psychological primary color and the CIECAM02 color is the same in the case of yellow, but the psychological primary color and the CIECAM02 colors are different in the cases of green, red, and blue?
I was just wondering about this. Keraunos ( talk) 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright everyone, I spent some time figuring out how to reasonably interpolate Munsell colors, and made up a bigger image showing the color at max chroma for each hue and value (my code is horribly un-optimized, so it took my computer about a half hour to render.. eep). Hopefully this helps demonstrate why I wasn’t happy with using X11/CSS values for these color names:
The “cross-cultural foci” are from MacLaury 1997, and were based on color chips at 40 hues, so they're a pretty rough guess (that’s 25 pixels, horizontally). The location of the NCS unique hues is taken from the Agoston book, and were to the nearest 1 Munsell hue unit (10 pixels). The other points are accurate to within a couple pixels. – jacobolus (t) 00:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
6G 5 / 7.61 (#008B66)
#008B66
HTML/CSS color, sadly unable to use color management in current browsers.
#008B66
I thought this quotation was cute: “Once upon a time, someone chose 16 full and half coordinate RGB primaries as the default color-map for early personal computer video cards, perhaps planning to implement full color using a halftone-like method. Instead, these were used as pure colors, often resulting in garish displays. This bad practice was made worse by using common color names to identify them; worse still by putting these in the Windows color-dictionary; and worse still by codifying these common color names (with RGB primaries) in HTML-3.2 and HTML-4.0, two of the most widely used standards in the world.” [...] “The development of HTML has embraced an ignorance of color science. Will the pervasiveness of HTML change our color lexicon” from <http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Color/Dictionaries>. – jacobolus (t) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Two Questions
1. After you (Jacobolus) replaced my color swatches, the color swatches you inserted do not register on my computer. Jacobolus, you still did not answer my question. Why is the yellow CIECAM02 color the SAME as the psychological primary color and the green, red, and blue CIECAM02 colors DIFFERENT (darker) than their CIECAM02 colors? Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2. My other question, Jacobolus, is what is the difference between the CIECAM02 colors and the four psychological primary colors? What are the CIECAM02 colors representing that is not already represented in the psychological primary colors? Keraunos ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You now have THREE different shades of green: Green (psychological primary), Green (NCS), and Green (CIACAM02). As far as I can tell, they are three different attempts to represent the psychological primary green in the RYGB color system (the four primary color psychological primary color system based on the opponent process theory of vision).
(Please do not change these color swatches since the other method of entering the color swatches you were using doesn’t work.)
Green (Psychological Primary) (Green (NCS))(#009246)
#009246
Green (NCS)(6G 5 / 7.61) (#008B66)
#008B66
CIECAM02 Green (#00BA85)
#00BA85
You still haven’t explained what CIECAM02 IS. WHAT IS IT? What does it represent? What does it represent that the Natural Color System or the darker Psychological Primary in the Wikipedia color chart doesn’t represent? Keraunos ( talk) 04:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 1080-R (#C40233)
#C40233
NCS S 0580-Y (#FFD300)
#FFD300
NCS S 1565-G (#00A368 )
#00A368
NCS S 1565-B (#0088BF)
#0088BF
It still doesn't work. All I see is a vertical black bar. Keraunos ( talk) 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the four NCS primary colors displayed in those four swatches above are an EXCELLENT representation of the four psychological primary colors! Keraunos ( talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 1080-R (#C40233)
#C40233
NCS S 1080-Y (#ECBD00 )
#ECBD00
NCS S 2060-G (#009F6B )
#009F6B
NCS S 2060-B (#0087BD)
#0087BD
Jacobolus, when you again refined the hex codes for the Psychological Primary Colors:, your forgot to change the rgb values to reflect the hex code changes. I just edited the image description and did that for you. Best wishes, Keraunos ( talk) 06:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 0580-Y (#FFD300)
#FFD300
I think the original yellow, at right, is better. I think the new yellow you changed the old yellow to is too dark. But I think the other three you changed are fine. Keraunos ( talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
VMS (and everyone else): part of our issue w/r/t differences about green may be differences in monitor set-up, etc., but a decent part might also just be variation in our personal understandings of unique green. Here’s what Kuehni has to say about it in his 2003 book Color Space and its Divisions:
So anyway, it’s very possible that my unique green and yours differ substantially, and any color we pick is going to seem too yellow to one of us or too blue to another, even under identical viewing conditions. (7.0G though, which Kuehni refers to as the latest best estimate as of 2003, is even bluer than the color samples I’ve been showing above, which are at 6.0G, and 2.5 BG as estimated in one study is quite a bit bluer still.) – jacobolus (t) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
NCS S 2060-G (#009F6B)
#009F6B
Randall Munroe performed a color survey and published the results at http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ and at http://xkcd.com/color/rgb/. Is this data suitable to be used for citations? -- Humanist Geek ( talk) 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to change the yellow in the psychological primary color chart back to the slightly lighter version within a few days since you said you had no objection to that. Then within the next week or so I'm going to create a suggested template for displaying the various versions of the primary colors. However, the RGB (X11) colors have to continue to be the one of the primary primary color sources, along with the CMYK colors and your four psychological primaries. The ISCC-NBS colors are totally useless for primary colors because they are too dark. Keraunos ( talk) 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Ultraviolet is up on WP:CFD for renaming, or splitting, or something else (that's the nomination). As UV is a colour that is visible to some animals, I thought I'd let you know. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 04:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Some other project members might be interested in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variations of blue. – jacobolus (t) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way Jacobolus, if you could vote a definite keep for the Variations of blue article that would be helpful as we will need that later. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Jacobolus, I think you have done a wonderful job in the section in the color green on color vision and colorimetry. That is pretty much what I was going to say so the next step is for you to create similar sections for red, yellow, and blue. I’ll let you take care of that. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
An example green
Munsell 2.5G 5/9
#088C56
I was wondering, when we put in the Munsell colors, wouldn’t be better to use the 10 or 5 Munsell colors instead of the 2.5G Munsell color you used in the green section on color vision and colorimetry? Does 2.5G Munsell mean it is halfway between 10GY and 5G? Do you have a way to calculate the complements of the 10 or 5 Munsell colors?
The 10 or 5 colors would be more to the center of the red, yellow, green, blue, or purple Munsell colors. Do you think it would be better to use the Munsell 5 or the Munsell 10 colors? Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Munsell colors are approximate because they have been adjusted to remain within the RGB gamut. Keraunos ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Munsell 5 Colors:
Munsell 5P Purple (#9F00C5)
#9F00C5
Munsell 5B Blue (#0093AF)
#0093AF
Munsell 5G Green (#00A877)
#00A877
Munsell 5Y Yellow (#EFCC00)
#EFCC00
Munsell 5R Red (#F2003C)
#F2003C
Munsell 10 Colors:
Munsell 10P (#0082B2)
#B900A6
Munsell 10B (#0082B2)
#0082B2
Munsell 10G (#00A78A)
#00A78A
Munsell 10Y (#F0EA00)
#F0EA00
Munsell 10R (#EE82EE)
#F85900
The Munsell 5 colors look better to me. Keraunos ( talk) 03:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone see the purpose of this template, with its odd assortment of "major colors", and variant definition of "secondary" that conflicts with the linked article? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed deleting it, so either way, opinions would be useful at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:List of Colors. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Due to some people not understanding the list template. I am all for changing the template into a Color topic template instead. Here's sort of example of what it would look like.
Jhenderson777 ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
vs
The toolserver link catches every single page tagged with the project banner. The Special: link only catches the pages that are mentioned on the project-page itself. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering about this color, there's not much information about it in Wikipedia. It's used for high visibility, most notably in tennis balls. It looks more yellow than green-yellow... I don't know what's the correct place to write about it. If someone's up for writing it, now's a perfect time because the US Open tournament is underway. ;) Wipe ( talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Color articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
All the articles chosen look fine to me as excellent choices. Keraunos ( talk) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are the new color displays I have prepared, based on the suggestion of VMS Mosaic, for the colors red, yellow, green, and blue to resolve the ongoing dispute since May 2010 regarding which colors to use to represent the four psychological primary colors. I am following VMS Mosaic’s suggestion to blank out the color boxes and provide samples of the various colors in different color systems. This solution should satisfy everyone. This way, each person can decide for themselves which color they choose to regard as red, yellow, green, or blue.
Please leave your comments regarding this new primary colors display as I would like to install these new color displays within the next week. Keraunos ( talk) 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Link displaying the new color displays: New Color Displays for the colors Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue:
This is a good idea, but the execution takes up a really large amount of space, which makes it hard to compare. The infoboxes for colors are in particular really huge; it should be possible to consolidate all the variants to a much greater extent.
Other notes:
– jacobolus (t) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe it would be a major mistake for a web based encyclopedia to not include the web (HTML/CSS) color definitions in the applicable color articles. The HTML/CSS colors are what one sees when a color is specified on the web. If nothing else the reader can see how "wrong" (personally, I think the HTML green is the only one suggested which even comes close to accurately representing green) the web colors are compared to the "expert's" opinions of the "true" colors. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Jacobolus, someone has already changed the green in the color box in the green article to HTML color #008000 from the color code for green (NCS). This is an example of why we need to install these color displays, so as to solve this problem once and for all. Keraunos ( talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.
I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒ DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
PDFs of all of these can be downloaded.
– jacobolus (t) 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Our long-time color contributor User:Keraunos continues to march to the beat of a different drummer, having no interest in WP:V, WP:RS, and consensus style issues. He has restored "in culture" and such trivia sections that contain exactly zero supported items (and I'm pretty generous in interpreting "supported", meaning that if there's a link to an article that even mentions the color, I'll usually accept that in lieu of a source, at least temporarily). And he puts in his favorite html "strip charts" that we long ago deprecated and removed from every place we could find them (some may still exist, since they don't use a template that would make them findable). I reverted a bunch of his "restores" today. Any support for continuing to push back on his contributions? Dicklyon ( talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I read on the Internet that by the year 2020, because of the operation of Moore's Law, it will be possible to have a one page Wikipedia article about everyone in the world! Last year, I got a half a terabyte backup hard drive for my computer. By 2020, the average personal computer hard drive will probably have a petabyte of memory! So there will be plenty of room for a lot of new information. Keraunos ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
In the context of a regular encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Brittanica, it would probably be considered trivial to have like Wikipedia does articles on just about every major film, TV show, comic book, and video game that ever existed. But I think it is wonderful that all of this information is available on Wikipedia. Keraunos ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, according to this chart, if Moore's Law holds we'll only reach hard drive capacities of an average of 100 terabytes by 2020. If Moore's Law holds beyond 2020, it will take until about 2025 to reach an average hard drive capacity of one petabyte. Increase in Hard Drive Capacity Since 1980: Keraunos ( talk) 13:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with adding spurious unencyclopedic unsourced information is not that it takes up too much space, but that the Wikipedia project can only be trusted and useful if it applies some standards. It is difficult enough to maintain an encyclopedia even sticking to facts which can be verified: articles still need to be carefully written and tended to be readable and relevant. We should strive to use the best and most authoritative sources, to be careful with our definitions, and so on. At the point where any mention of anything by some character in a novel or TV show is considered relevant, articles balloon quickly out of control, and turn into unmanaged and unmanageable messes. Instead of arguing about which trivialities should be kept and which abandoned, it would be a much better use of everyone's effort to try to abide by the clearly described policies in WP:RS and WP:V and so on, and then do the actual hard research required to write clear and comprehensive articles about each subject. -- jacobolus (t) 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'm late to this discussion. I just came here from "Ecru" (didn't know what it was before now), and I saw something like:
Now, an RGB triplet without any reference standard is meaningless; I'm assuming HSV is similar. Equally, web triplets are arbitrary.
An L*a*b* specification doesn't have that issue. An image with an ICC profile attached doesn't have that issue (at least outside the cyan region :-).
Can we at least agree to list which RGB model is being assumed, provide the L*a*b* co-ordinates, and indicate if the color is "out of gamut" on sRGB?
(I know, this doesn't begin to address the question of "Which shade of green gets the "Green" standard label?". I know paint stores have that big book of color samples and shades that cover all the visible color range. Can that be used as a reference standard?)
Keybounce ( talk) 02:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Input needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine (color). -- Noleander ( talk) 06:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated a few colo[u]r articles for deletion. All suggestions welcomed!
bobrayner ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm no expert on colour, but articles like
Persimmon (color) are quite worrying. I've come across a lot of articles like this, where the source for the name is one catalogue out of many - perhaps just one entry in a sample book - but this source does not actually give RGB/HSV values so the author has got their own values by looking at some photo on the internet. It seems unlikely, to me, that one can get an accurate colour from one photograph out of many, as the exact colour in the photograph will be so dependent on lighting, post-processing, and of course the ripeness of that particular persimmon. Although there are areas where editors seen keen to fill in empty fields with the first value they can get their hands on, I think that an encyclopædia should not give exact values for something if the exact value is not actually known or knowable. What do the colour experts think?
bobrayner (
talk)
13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
On a different note, I've found a very large number of colours which are sourced like this. The editor decided to write something about "Medium Candy Apple Red", browsed through google images, and turned up this picture of a toy car. The toy car is not even labelled with "this is a Medium Candy Apple Red car", it's not from a reliable source, and of course you certainly can't get reliable RGB/HSV values from a photo of a toy car which has been subjected to unknown post-processing. Nonetheless, large volumes of this stuff gets added to the encyclopædia. bobrayner ( talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nearly finished.
Any suggestions / comments? What needs fixing next? bobrayner ( talk) 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think two things can be learned from this discussion
Even though BobRayner is technically correct about WP:V, I believe that he has misinterpreted this discussion as a mandate to ax a lot of content. Per policies such as WP:BEFORE, when an AFD or a large BOLD removal of content is done, the nominator/removal should try to see if sources can be found. I believe Bob has not made that attempt, and is too removal-happy. Keraunos and others point out that such sources are pretty easily accessible. So instead of axing content, perhaps Bob should try to source some of that content Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A second batch of colour neologisms/ dicdefs has been nominated for deletion:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner ( talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Indigo is color #4B0082, but in the Blue footer template Template:Shades of blue it uses #6F00FF for "Indigo". That seems wrong. I dont doubt that 6F00FF is a fine color, but the template should not be using the name "Indigo" (with a link to Indigo) since that causes WP to give two different meanings to one color-name. Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 18:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If you ask me, all the “shades of...” footer templates should be scrapped entirely as they are redundant and hard to keep in sync with color articles and the “list of colors”, etc., and the color name articles in general should be consolidated (into maybe 15 or 20 prominent color categories) since most of them are stubs with no potential for further growth. Any of those categories which currently has a “shades of” template might be a decent candidate for a consolidated article. At some point user:Wrad put a great deal of effort into cleaning up Green and made a Variations of Green article as a sort of overflow bin for all the color list trivia. The same should be done with other broad color categories. Independent articles could exist for color names which are actually notable (e.g. International Klein Blue), etc. – jacobolus (t) 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the articles on the shades of blue/red, etc are named Variations of blue, Variations of red, etc. That doesn't seem like the best phrasing: "Shades of blue" etc seems much more natural and concise. I looked in the Talk archives, and all I could find is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Color/Archive_4#Move_to_Variations.2FVarieties_of_... ... which doesn't really say much. Can anyone explain the choice of the word "Variations"? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that one of perbang.dk's sources is en.wikipedia. It has even inherited some of en.wikipedia's dubious lists of Crayola colours. Should perbang.dk be trusted as a source for RGB values? bobrayner ( talk) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
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. |
diction
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OED
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Islam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).