![]() | 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:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
The initiative is outlined here:
and being carried out here:
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)):
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 RX 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
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].
I look forward to helping out, let me know the game plan Jhmadden ( talk) 23:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
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. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 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)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:31, 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)
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 America 1000 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.
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)
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)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:30, 9 September 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? /info/en/?search=User:Da5nsy#Proposals_for_future_color_vision_pages Da5nsy ( talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
{{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)
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)
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)
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.)-- Artoria 2e5 🌉
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:40, 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.
Curran919 ( talk) 22:07, 19 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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.
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:
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)
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.
[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)
With secondary categories:
![]() | 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:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
The initiative is outlined here:
and being carried out here:
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)):
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 RX 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
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].
I look forward to helping out, let me know the game plan Jhmadden ( talk) 23:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
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. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 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)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:31, 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)
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 America 1000 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.
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)
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)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
09:30, 9 September 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? /info/en/?search=User:Da5nsy#Proposals_for_future_color_vision_pages Da5nsy ( talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
{{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)
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)
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)
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.)-- Artoria 2e5 🌉
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:40, 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.
Curran919 ( talk) 22:07, 19 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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.
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:
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)
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.
[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)
With secondary categories: