Talk:Blue-green

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

I'm deleting the redirect. Teal only refers to a darker blue-green; Cyan refers to the lighter variety. They're both equally notable blue-greens. Disamb page! Matt Yeager 06:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Use of "Blue-Green" as a Replacement for Cyan

It appears that "blue-green" has been used as a substitute for cyan, and continues to be occasionally used for this relatively new addition to the color vocabulary. This can be understood as similar to "red-green" in a scenario where we lacked a word for yellow. Maybe "blue-green" should be redirected to cyan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrittman (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for blue-green. --Jingofetts 16:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge a bunch of articles into here

It seems to me that the articles about cyan, teal, and the bevy of other blue-greens, when combined amount to about half an article. Instead of leaving them as many stubs, why don't we consolidate them, so effort can go into making a good article about blue-green colors and their usage and significance. --jacobolus (t) 05:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Object. Teal is more bluish. It's like the blue equivalent of green's turquoise. It goes like this: Blue, Teal, Cyan, Turquoise, Green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.72.159 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Object. Not sure about the other shades, but Cyan should stay separate, as it is an important color in the RGB and CMYK color models. --woggly 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but most of these other articles are just different names for "cyan" (and cyan in those two models refers to two quite different colors within roughly the same hue range). The point of putting it at "blue-green" is that the name of the color doesn't matter nearly as much as its appearance. If this merge took place, I would certainly make sure it did a far better job explaining the significance of "cyan" to the RGB/CMYK models than the current cyan article does. --jacobolus (t) 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object What is the source of the color you call Blue-green in the color box in this article (color #00DDDD, RGB code 0,222,223)? This color seems totally arbitrary. At least cyan is a recognized web color and is one of the six major colors on the color wheel. If you think that you can do a better job explaining cyan, then you should add you information it under the cyan article. I inserted most of the original information in the cyan article. If you have more or better information, then you should add it. Keraunos 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you merge the articles then all the information in the colors in human culture section would be lost. Young teenage Wikipedians get a lot of pleasure out of contributing to these trivia sections such as about film and music and television and their loyalty pays off later--after they graduate from college they can continue to contribute in a more scholarly manner. Keraunos 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you believe, it does help us understand your editing at least. But I'd go the other way, and discourage immature editors from adding useless unsourced trivia, so they might mature into useful editors. Dicklyon 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "color in human culture" sections are very interesting and fun. Since I don't go to movies or watch television that much, and I don't play video games at all (although I like to read a lot), I find it fascinating to see the contributions of other Wikipedia users regarding how the various colors are used or mentioned in films, television, or video games. I think it is marvelous to find out in the article about the color chartreuse that "In the television show, The Angry Beavers, Norbert's girlfriend Treeflower fronts for a band called The Friendly Chartreuse Bubble Gum Machine." We shouldn't take Wikipedia too seriously all the time--factoids like this add some lighthearted fun to it that you couldn't get in regular encyclopedias. Keraunos 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TRIVIA, WP:HTRIV, and WP:REL. --jacobolus (t) 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out WP:HTRIV; that means I can feel free to remove trivia that's of trivial importance to the topic. That should shorten a lot of articles a lot. It seems to me that list all the teams, countries, parties, movies, etc. that use a certain color is of no important the article on that color, so OK if we just flush all that? Dicklyon 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:HTRIV is just an essay, not official policy. But I think it certainly fits with the intent of WP:NOTE, etc., and I myself would prefer flushing out trivia like "The Red Violin is a 1998 film telling the 300 year history of a special violin," (from Red) which really has nothing to do with the color. Some of the tidbits in color trivia sections would be fine at another article, and some of it can be integrated into color articles, but a lot is indeed just non-relevant "cruft". --jacobolus (t) 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) all the definitions of these colors are arbitrary, so I would prefer to use no particular swatch at the top of the blue-green article. Any particular sourced swatches could come later in the article though.
B) The "color wheel" should generally name *hues*. I was under the impression that "cyan" was specifically light blue-green, and that dark blue-green colors weren't referred to as Cyan. If that's not the case, I don't really mind naming the article "Cyan" instead of "Blue-Green"
C) The information in the "human culture" section can perfectly reasonably be fit into a combined article (i.e. merge ≠ delete). Indeed, the problem is that most such information is about the *color* not the specific color name. So if there are multiple names for the color, it makes no sense to duplicate all that information at all the articles.
D) What young Wikipedians like to do is irrelevant to making the article about this subject as good as possible, but I find your remark quite demeaning towards students, who in my opinion are perfectly capable of being "scholarly".
E) your comment completely ignores the main point of this proposal, which is that these color names all refer to the same hue, and the ranges of color which could be called "turquoise", "aqua", "cyan", etc. are fuzzy, arbitrary and almost completely overlapping.
F) Give me a reason that a combined article couldn't be a more informative treatment of the subject than separate articles; preferably a reason that each one of the listed articles is useful on its own page. --jacobolus (t) 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree that some merging of similar colors is needed. Perhaps cyan, or perhaps blue-green is a good name, or perhaps we need to keep these two separated; but we certainly should merge all the minor variants into one or the other. I think I'd prefer to put it all under cyan but then say that Cyan and blue-green are general names for a range of colors between blue and green, or something like that. Dicklyon 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) Cyan is not a "light shade of blue green". It is one of the six basic colors of the color wheel and it is therefore a pure hue (which is called a chroma). If you go to the CIE chromaticity diagram you can see that cyan is on the edge of the curve (between green and blue) where all the pure spectrum colors (and purples) are. The colors on the edge of this curve are called chromas. Cyan is a chroma, but the other blue-green colors are tints if they are mixed with white (like Electric blue) or shades if they are mixed with black (like Teal).
B) The color names are not fuzzy or arbitrary. I long ago compared all the Wikipedia color names (aquamarine, teal, etc.) (not only the blue-green colors but also the other Wikipedia colors that are not sourced from web colors) to the color chips in my 1930 book The Dictionary of Color by Maerz and Paul and they practically all match the color chips in that book, which was the world standard for color names before the introduction of computers. I have included references to that book in most of the color articles.
C) If you want to include the non-cyan blue-green colors as (aquamarine, teal, etc.) as as “variations of cyan”, then why do you object to the “variations of magenta” which I included in the magenta article?
D) Speaking of blue-green colors, the whole idea of the color comparison charts that I created was so that people could compare colors of one specific type. I know you don’t like my color comparison charts, but why don’t you leave this one here a few days before deleting it? It shows all of the blue-green colors together so you can compare them and see how close together each one is to the others. Spend several minutes looking at it and you will see that it expresses the essence of "blue-green": —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keraunos (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source for such notions as cyan being a "pure hue" or a "pure spectrum color"? I have not been able to find any support for that notion. Certain no actual cyan used by printers is anywhere near a pure spectral color. Dicklyon 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process cyan (printer's cyan) is not a pure spectrum color but electric cyan is as close to a spectrum color as is possible within the limitations of the gamut of the RGB color space Keraunos 07:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your terminology is extremely confusing, and perhaps you are confused by it. "chroma" means the "color purity" or "colorfulness" of a color, i.e. the difference between the color and gray. "hue" means the angle around a color wheel. I think when you refer to a "pure hue" you're talking about the color of a specific pigment, from which tints can be made by mixture with white. If so, pigments *definitely* deserve their own articles, and there are several blue-green pigments that should be discussed on this page and linked to. If there's some particular "tint" of a blue-green pigment, which actually has enough (sourced, encyclopedic) information about it that it won't fit on this page anymore, then it can be broken out into its own page. But since the sum of these color articles right now has about 1/4 an article of content, I don't fear that happening any time soon.

The color names are completely fuzzy and arbitrary: Maerz and Paul just picked arbitrary swatches and gave them names, and their usage has only mild relation to the real world. These swatches cannot be converted in any good way to sRGB, because they will appear completely different depending on the light source used, and I've seen no evidence that Maertz/Paul's swatches have any precise technical definitions (at least you've given none). This is the fundamental problem of using color names, and the reason that we should all be using a well-specified system; for instance, in the Munsell system we can talk about 7.5R 10/10, and know that we understand the exact definition of that color. If instead I say "Brick red", you might have a different idea about what that means than I do, because bricks come in many slightly-different colors, and the concept "brick red" encompasses a whole range of possible colors.

As for the strip chart: color is continuous, not discrete, and picking out these specific colors to put on a page is giving them undue weight. Much better is to show a two-dimensional gradient, or better still, several photographs of blue-green objects. --jacobolus (t) 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Object; Though a couple of these articles may not require their own article, jamming them all onto one page does not be the best approach either. Their are several examples of subjects in a series having their own article, and a page that discuses the the series in general. Also while blue-green is a vague term for the current article, if merged proceeds would be more appropriately titled something like Variations of blue-green colors since the primary subject would no longer talking about one color. Side notes, why are you merging into what is currently the worst article of the set, what advantages in discussion will be gained by merger to compensate for loss of focus and subject clarity. WikipedianYknOK 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue here is that "no longer talking about one color" wouldn't really be accurate. The fallacy is to assume that these color names refer to anything definite. In practice, each name is used to refer to a whole range of colors, and the names I've listed here are greatly overlapping. A few of these articles refer to an approximately identical range of colors, and a few more refer to more specific subsets of that range. But by lumping them into one article, we can better describe the actually encyclopedic information, such as what wavelengths of light the "spectral colors" associated with the name are, what the cultural associations are of the range of colors, etc. If there's some specific sub-color which actually has enough sourcable, encyclopedic information to fill out its own reasonable-length article, I'm happy to let it be separate. The issue here is that 95% of the articles about color just say "The color «foo» refers to the color of «foo»", where you can replace «foo» with "pomegranite" or "thistle" or "wheat" or "lilac" or "turquoise" etc. etc. These articles (which will never be more than stubs) serve no purpose in my opinion; the wikipedia reader would be better served by going to the article about "wheat" and just looking at a picture of wheat, which hopefully clearly shows what color it is.

As for why I'd put it at blue-green: blue-green is a generic, neutral name for the range of colors (or more accurately for the range of hues). I was under the impression that "cyan" referred to only light blue-greens, while "teal" referred to the darker ones. If this is wrong, and "cyan" can be used for both, then I'm perfectly happy putting the merged article at "cyan", or even perhaps making it 2 articles. It's having 10 that's ridiculous.

--jacobolus (t) 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jacobolus I get the feeling your going to go ahead with this no matter what other peoples opinions are, Am I right? WikipedianYknOK 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a very nice or constructive comment. Please WP:AGF. Jacobolus has been one of the most productive and constructive editors of color articles, so if you'd like to help, express useful suggestions and arguments, not cynicism. Dicklyon 23:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, certainly not! That's why I brought it up in a discussion instead of just doing it. I'd like to form some general consensus about what should be done with color articles (a large majority of which are not encyclopedic in their current form), but I thought the best way to start would be with the cyan/blue-green colors, which provide a pretty clear-cut and limited case to discuss. I'd really like to know what you think the best thing to do with these articles is. Keraunos's position seems to be that we should have a separate article for every word that has ever been used as a color name, whether or not there's anything to say about it, and we should additionally make a giant chart that shows all of these color names, one per line. (if this is an unfair characterization Keraunos, please correct me) To me, this seems highly arbitrary, and not particularly useful for wikipedia readers. So as an alternative, I'd like to lump color articles into 15-20 major articles (which we can hopefully improve to good article status, as Wrad is trying to do with Green. If there is then enough information about some more specific color (I don't know, like baby blue or something) to actually fill out a complete article with information that isn't relevant to the more general color term (or somewhere else), or that is too long to fit on the general page, then I completely agree that such articles should exist. What bothers me is the hundreds of stubs with no possibilities for expansion. --jacobolus (t) 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So to re-iterate, what do you suggest should be done with these articles, WikipedianYknOK? --jacobolus (t) 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to see is an article like you were proposing on colors that are closely related, it may even need to be nested, and those that also have enough depth to have a deeper detail have a further details on their own page. Also on the page discussing the section of that spectrum of colors have some link to the the deeper articles. My original point was about wanting to see that subjects with distinct associations with things like technology or culture that clarity on the subject not be lost by merging in a way that their is no consistency on what the article's subject is. WikipedianYknOK 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well great! That's exactly what I want too. :) --jacobolus (t) 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a further example, here's a list of reasonably sourced color terms, of which over 300 begin with the letter "A". Should every such color term have its own article? The result would be several thousand stubs, with nothing more than a sentence or two, a swatch, and a hex code. --jacobolus (t) 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge. I suggest Color categories as being a better solution, see: proposed category: Category:Blue User:Pedant 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you support adding arbitrarily-many non-notable stub (without prospects for more) articles about every word ever used to refer to a color? --jacobolus (t) 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their is no reason if color categories were implemented they would have to be mutually exclusive, their are many categories that also have an article. WikipedianYknOK 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Im a joe-typical user of Wikipedia, and I have to jump in here: I would prefer that the articles be left separate. Im a software engineer specializing in user interfaces, and I frequently need to select specific colors, and the names and histories are actually rather useful. Cyan, specifically, is a critical color in the computer industry, and I cannot imagine an encyclopedia without a dedicated article on Cyan. Naturally, there could be some overview article on blue-green colors in general, but I wouldn't blend the Cyan article into a larger article. FWIW. Noleander 06:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.61.104.156 (talk) [reply]

I'm also a fairly typical user, and I also like the separation. Color names have unique usages, etymologies, etc. I found this article on teal very specific, and easy to refer tailors to (I'm in the costume business). Wikipedia, being what it is, is actually *creating* a global standard usage, where there was none, I have had manufacturing firms in korea refer me to wikipedia color pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.210.25 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at all the articles listed, and tell us which ones you think are worth having separate articles for. --jacobolus (t) 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that dedicated articles should be used for colors that have significant usage in literature, culture, or history. Examples of blue-green colors that may rise to the that level of significance: Cyan, Turquoise, Teal, Cerulean, Baby Blue, Sky blue. Examples of blue-green colors that may not rise to that level of significance: light blue-green, Bondi Blue, pale XXXX, light XXXX, dark XXXX, etc. Given that there is a "global" blue-green article that summarizes the dozens of color variants, at some point, some of the "famous" variants will have enough information about them individually to warrant a dedicated article. Turquose, Cyan, and Teal are such common and widely-used terms that they could get lost if buried inside a larger article. (apologies about my formatting ... Im not sure how to get the date entered here automatically). --Noleander 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.61.104.156 (talk) [reply]

What's the benefit to readers of having dedicated articles for aqua (color), aquamarine (color) (as separate from the aquamarine article), turquoise (color) (separate from turquoise), robin egg blue, etc., over having them section in merged articles? Turquoise and aquamarine the stones obviously need its own articles, but everything currently in articles about those two "colors" could just as well fit in either a merged together color article, or in the articles about turquoise or aquamarine. --jacobolus (t) 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the proposed merge. The names of the colors are not arbitrary, and cannot be adequately substituted for with "blue-green", much less "cyan". I found the page for "teal" based on a specific search for that color, which has well defined and understood meaning. I was looking for the specific R,G,B values for that color, and found it directly. 134.134.136.5 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you be able to find that information equally well in a combined article, if teal (color) redirected to a section of it, with the (r, g, b) triplet defined in X11/CSS? It's not like merging the articles would mean deleting all reference to "teal". --jacobolus (t) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chance for interactive feature

I see this as a great opportunity to add some really nice interactive elements to Wikipedia- perhaps a grid of colours and colors which gives links to the colours' pages, however, DO NOT MERGE THE ARTICLES. You will only end up separating them in a few years. TDN 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but not to this page - While I think many of the articles should be merged and cleaned up, I think colors derived from color of something should be if possible moved into the base article. I also think that instead of merging to Blue-green, merging to cyan and teal (color) would probably be the better choice, leaving this page either as a redirect or a disambiguation page and removing the color coordinates box on it. PaleAqua (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of merging the lighter shades and the darkers shades under one article, they're totally different IMHO. Someone suggested earlier having pages for cyan for lighter shades and teal darker shades, this sounds better to me personally, however I might also suggested adding the "Shades of Cyan" box as seen at the bottom of Robin egg blue Gialloneri (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the consensus is DO NOT MERGE. After discussion with the Wiki help desk, the merge tag has been removed from this and all other associated articles. Truthanado (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of cyan color comparison chart

Alice Blue (web color) (Hex: #F0F8FF) (RGB: 240, 248, 255)
Baby Blue (web color Light Cyan) (Hex: #E0FFFF) (RGB: 224, 255, 255)
Electric Blue (Hex:7DF9FF) (RGB: 125, 249, 255)
Pale Turquoise (web color) (Hex: #AFEEEE) (RGB: 175, 238, 238)
Pale Robin Egg Blue (Hex: #96DED1) (RGB: 150, 222, 205)
Aquamarine (web color) (Hex: #7FFFD4) (RGB: 127, 255, 212)
Aquamarine Blue (Crayola Aquamarine) (Hex: #71D9E2) (RGB: 113, 217, 226)
CYAN (web color Aqua) (Electric Cyan) (Electrical Blue) (Hex: #00FFFF) (RGB: 0, 255, 255)
Bright Turquoise (Hex: #08E8DE) (RGB: 8, 232, 222)
Turquoise (web color) (Hex: #30D5C8) (RGB: 48, 213, 200)
Turquoise Blue (web color Deep Sky Blue) (Hex: #00BFFF) (RGB: 0, 191, 255)
Process Cyan (Pigment Cyan) (Printer's Cyan) (Hex: #00B7EB) (RGB: 0, 180, 247)
Bright Cerulean (Crayola Cerulean) (Hex: #02A4D3) (RGB: 2, 164, 211)
Deep Turquoise (web color "Dark Turquoise") (Hex: #00CED1) (RGB: 0, 206, 209)
Robin Egg Blue (Hex: #00CCCC) (RGB: 0, 204, 204)
Medium Turquoise (web color) (Hex: #48D1CC) (RGB: 72, 209, 204)
Medium Aquamarine (web color) (Hex: #66CDAA) (RGB: 102, 205, 170)
Light Sea Green (web color) (Hex: #20B2AA) (RGB: 32, 178, 170)
Viridian (Hex: #40826D) (RGB: 64, 130, 109)
Pine Green (Crayola) (Hex: #01796F) (RGB: 1, 121, 111)
Dark Cyan (web color) (Hex: #008B8B) (RGB: 0, 139, 139)
Teal (Hex: #008080) (RGB: 0, 128, 128)
Bondi Blue (Crayola Blue-Green) (Hex: #0095B6) (RGB: 0, 149, 182)
Cerulean (Hex: #007BA7) (RGB: 0, 123, 167)

Well, these are just a few comments. More later. Keraunos 07:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this chart is supposed to prove. The generic name "blue-green" (or perhaps "cyan") includes all of these colors. --jacobolus (t) 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chart proves that they are all separate and distinct colors. They are not included in some imaginary "blue-green" like that color box you made up but they are all separate and distinct. That's why I think all the articles should be kept separate because each article could easily be expanded into many more colors. Keraunos 07:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the chart proves that of the millions of colors one can make in the RGB space, many of them are blue-green in color. Without sources, it says nothing about the other names, and their existence is not in itself an argument that they are notable enough to warrant their own article. Dicklyon 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical use of color names

I am not saying that there should be "a separate article for every word that has ever been used as a color name" (that would be absurd) but there should be a separate article for every major color name that is at least 50 or 75 years old. I inserted into many of the color articles the year of the first recorded use of that term as a color name. For example, the color names aquamarine and turquoise have been in use since the 16th century. Therefore, I think that colors with such a long history should each have their own article. Keraunos 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) The decision about what color is "major" is completely arbitrary, and B) etymology (i.e. an article which contains nothing more than etymology) belongs in a dictionary, not wikipedia. --jacobolus (t) 05:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, tangentially related to this discussion, you keep adding a post by an anonymous person (nickname: XxOiLsP1lLxX) in a first person shooter game forum as a source for color coordinates (for instance thistle (color). I don't think such a source is legitimate. --jacobolus (t)

There are various sources for X11 colors, including thistle, but that one certainly doesn't come close to WP:RS. Dicklyon 05:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the error I made regarding the source of the color thistle by inserting as its source the actual source, the X11 color list. Keraunos 09:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more colors to articles

I added two more shades of cyan to the cyan article (the web colors "dark cyan" and "light sea green") and three more shades of turquoise to the turquoise article (the web colors "pale turquoise", "medium turquoise", and "dark turquoise"), and those are only X11 web colors! By adding Crayola colors and colors from the ISCC-NBS Dictionary of Colo(u)r Names—1955 ISCC-NBS to the articles that exist now, they could all be expanded into full articles and there would be no need to merge the articles. However, if you have more information about blue-green colors, it seems to me tha place to put it is under cyan. Keraunos 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that ISCC/NBS has several thousand arbitrary color names, right? And that some of them are associated with multiple "colors"? A simple link to an online list of ISCC/NBS colors would be just as useful (no, make that more useful) to users as a wikipedia article about each one (here's such a link, if you're interested). Just as wikipedia is not a dictionary, wikipedia is also not a color book (see WP:NOT). --jacobolus (t) 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of color Turquoise

If you (Jacobolus or Dicklyon) don't approve of the source of the color turquoise, then I think you should take it upon yourselves to find a new source (and change the hex code in the color box accordingly). A color that has been in use for over four centuries deserves to have its own article in the Wikipedia in my opinion. Keraunos 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put in the X11 numbers and refs like the other variants. I'm not saying I agree that one has to take on the reponsibility when removing a nonsensical citation, or that every old color rates an article, but I do what I can to help. Dicklyon 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the hex code for turquoise as given when you put X11 as the source the doesn't match any of the X11 colors. So I changed it to the Crayola turquoise,

gave that as the source, and changed the hex code so the hex code and the source will match. Keraunos 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the correct source for the color turquoise is the X11 color list, as inserted by Dicklyon. Keraunos 10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the merge

Hi, everyone

About what colours should be merged i would like to bring up some things to consider. The colour Teal (color) it isn't green nor blue. It's: R-0, G-128, B-128. Like Olive (color) is R-128, G-128, B-0 and Purple is R-128, G-0, B-128. By that point of view, we would have to merge olive in some Shades of green article and purple in some Shades of violet or something like that. Cyan is for yellow and magenta as teal is for olive and purple. Regarding the Aquamarine (color) and the Turquoise (color), they devrive from the gem stones of the same name, so here, we will have to evaluate the importance of the colours kinda like the notoriety policy of Wikipedia, if they are widely used or known, those kinds of things. Aqua (color), comparing its infobox values with cyan, looks the same to me, the only difference is aqua being a Web color. As for Bondi blue, Electric blue (color) and Robin egg blue, i find no parallel among them, so i think those can be merged, if we really have to merge something. That was my opinion. I hope that there's anything useful in what i wrote.

Keep up the good work. --Bluedenim 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible photo

Those who work on this page, a possible photo for you. Cool colors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you didn't read the article. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who reads articles?! Just look at the photos!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blue-green/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Do not merge Cyan into anything else, please. The distinct color Cyan has been inportant all of my adult life; beginning in early televison at Philco Research and with the advent of computers in many of the GUIs that I am still working on. It is distinct, please do not blur it.

Thanks,

65.166.166.226 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Bernard O'Connor[reply]

Last edited at 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)