Talk:Color

Maybe a variation of the Munsell system would be a more elegant way to create each "shades of x" article

I started out thinking that the RGB system was the way to go, but I soon noticed its shortcomings. One of them is that its colour wheel is not balanced. For example, the transition from red to yellow is way too short in the wheel. After seeing many different colour wheels, I believe that Munsell's is the most balanced when it comes to doing justice to each hue's space in the colour wheel, and not overemphasising others. It makes the most sense while looking at the spectral colours in firsthand through a prism. It also has the property that each one of these hues is really close to its complementary. Please let me know what you think.

Example of how it would look like (for the hues only, it excludes brown or pink, for example):

1 Shades of red

2 Shades of orange

3 Shades of yellow

4 Shades of chartreuse/lime (main representative colour being near #98cf00)

5 Shades of green (main representative colour being near #19d451)

6 Shades of cyan/aqua (near #00c7b0)

7 Shades of blue (near #1f9bed)

8 Shades of ultramarine/indigo (near #6369ff)

9 Shades of purple/violet (near #bf66ff)

0 Shades of magenta (near #ff57b3)

You can also notice that these colours match their complementaries really well:

red-cyan

orange-blue

yellow-ultramarine (it's the same hue as the RGB 0000FF)

chartreuse-purple/violet

Amecordo

the dogg side effects: 1%$32466587+90?). (8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.189.176.3 (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you finished working on these changes? I am tidying the talk page for Color as most of the items seem to be old and resolved. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

green-magenta

The RGB red is slightly orange-ish. If you look at the red through a prism, you can clearly see that there is a redder red than the RGB one. If we try to find the complementary for this pure red, it falls somewhere between 170 to 180 degrees in the HSV hue wheel.

I also think that the archetypical blue should be something around 210 degrees, because that's what most people and cultures think of the archetypical blue. The RGB blue is slightly violet-ish.

So my proposal is to: 1 merge 'shades of cyan' and 'shades of spring green' and call it 'shades of blue-green'.

2 rename 'shades of azure' as 'shades of blue' and add some new colours to it that represent both the blues closer to cyan and the blues closer to ultramarine.

3 rename 'shades of blue' as 'shades of ultramarine or indigo', and move some of the colours there to the new 'shades of blue'.

4 merge 'shades of magenta' with 'shades of rose'.

Let me know what you think. Restfultree2022 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at ISCC–NBS system. –jacobolus (t) 09:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think it's missing blue-green, magenta (those hues between 300 and 350 degrees), and ultramarine (between 230 and 255 degrees) as primary hues. In my opinion, these hue areas deserve acknowledgement on par with 'shades of red' and so on. Restfultree2022 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all given clear and unambiguous names. "Magenta" is called purplish red (pR), "ultramarine" is called purplish blue (pB). Also "teal"/"turquoise" is split into bluish green (bG) and greenish blue (gB) (though personally I might instead make a single blue–green category a bit smaller than the combination of those two put together). The point was to make precisely defined categories, not to give every category a one-word name. Anyway, this is more or less what you were asking or: a clearly specified system based on Munsell coordinates. –jacobolus (t) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, what I'm mostly pondering on is what the exemplary colour code should be for the archetype of each hue.

It's also about the balance of the colour wheel. I see more difference between red to yellow than red to RGB magenta for example. The RGB green is slightly yellower than the greenest green I can see in the spectrum. The RGB colour wheel gets quite strange around green. One it gets near 120 degrees, there is very minimum difference. That's not what happens in the rainbow. I think it has something to do with how limited the sRGB gamut is about making those greens. Restfultree2022 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking, maybe this is the most balanced way to divide the colour wheel: https://imgur.com/a/hOYTYFJ

But I'm not sure. Restfultree2022 (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

change "British and Commonwealth English" to plain old "Commonwealth English" 2600:1700:14BE:E00:ACCA:E9DF:5238:DD45 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the alert. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Recently reverted Good Faith edits were in fact the better version, contrary to the opinion of the editor who reverted them.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

]], [[American and British English spelling differences#-our, -or|see spelling differences Cunnismeta (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead

The lead paragraph has gotten problematic again. It now reads:

Color (or colour in Commonwealth English; see spelling differences) is the visual perception based on the electromagnetic spectrum.

I have trouble understanding this. We had a pretty nice one in mid-2022:

Color (American English) or colour (British English) is the visual perceptual property deriving from the spectrum of light interacting with the photoreceptor cells of the eyes.

and about six months before that:

Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called blue, green, red, etc.

Seems to me it's gotten less understandable with each iteration. There's a good reason that in September of 2021, we rolled the lead clear back to 2016, based on the discussion on top of this archive and what preceded it. I think we need to look backwards again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Colour is derived from the electromagnetic spectrum, but is only a very small part of it. Also, other living things can perceive colour although they may not do it in exactly the same way as humans. The lead should make these things clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that the mid-2022 leading sentence is better than what is now. I would definitely not lead with something like "color is the quantity that is often described as blue, green, red, etc.", which is maybe useful in simple english, but would definitely not be useful information to anyone reading this article. Color is 99% a projection the EM spectrum. The extra 1% is just higher level corrections in the brain, which then brings human-centricity into account. No need to shy away from defining color starting most importantly with the EM spectrum. Curran919 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree....the old versions did a better job of explaining. Probably better than them all would be a summary that addresses the dichotomy. Some meanings "color" are technical (eg assigning color names to particular wavelengths/ frequencies) but most meanings are a human perceptions. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Should ping @8-leaf clover, the editor responsible for these changes. I also think they're generally deleterious. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. While I honestly don't remember changing the lead (at least not significantly), I completely agree in that the 2022 one is much more accurate than the current one (which can create the misconception that color = wavelengths, making people believe false things like "magenta doesn't exist because it's not in the visible spectrum"). 8-leaf clover (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Color in the brain section

This section is confusing:

• 'TEO' is a bolt out of the blue (not established in the article).
• The secend paragraph, "The exact nature of color perception beyond the processing already described, and indeed the status of color as a feature of the perceived world or rather as a feature of our perception of the world—a type of qualia—is a matter of complex and continuing philosophical dispute." Has a 'citation needed' tag, a bold statement to have no supporting source.
• The text uses labels (V1, V2, V3, and V4, the image has no labels). The word 'blobs' in the text is neither explained nor blue-linked though 'globs' is blue-linked.
• The phrase "separating the thin stripes are interstripes and thick stripes" is made less meaningful because the image is unlabeled, bringing into question whether the stripes are physically present in the brain or refer to missing graphical keys.

The current version of this section (as of April 23, 2025) is difficult for the general user to get through. Most will hum and skim the material as it is now.

I do not do graphics. What I can do is improve the text and ask others to label the drawing. If someone does not reply or improve the section within a few weeks, I intend to edit the section. I am not a subject matter expert; my technical color experience experience is limited to matching cameras, monitors, and lighting with a vector scope (an electronic polar display of color content in a video signal).

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 12:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC) —

Requested move 12 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Early close, not moved. This is not happening. Nominator cites WP:ENGVAR but shows no indication of reading it or understanding it, as it says precisely the opposite of what is presented. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Color → Colour – The current title of the article, Color, uses the American English spelling. However, per Wikipedia’s guidelines for language variants outlined in WP:ENGVAR, the spelling Colour is the standard in British English and many other English dialects worldwide. The spelling Colour is used in countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and various other Commonwealth nations. Additionally, the word Colour is also more consistent with the way other related topics are presented in global English contexts. Moving the page title to Colour would align it with international standards and make the article more reflective of global English usage, especially for readers in countries that primarily use British English. Changing the title would also help make the article more accessible to readers who expect to find terms written in the British English format. M1rrorCr0ss 01:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This article use American English spelling, and we cannot move the page unless we find a consensus about the change of Manual of Style regarding national varieties of English (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English). Additionally, i'm never heard a move request regarding the name of this article before. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose As an Australian editor I find the spelling in this article constantly jarring, but I have to admit that current policies force us to use a spelling I have to correct every time I see my students use it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This move request should not have been made, because there is an adequate explanation in the talk page header. Time for a speedy close here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there's an explanation, but please be aware that for those of us outside the USA, "color" will always look like a spelling error made by someone with poor educational levels. This will happen again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:RETAIN. Although the spelling "color" may seem like spelling error for those lived outside the US and countries whose its English is more influenced by Americans (remember for those lived in Europe, Africa, and Commonwealth countries, "colour" is preferred spelling), there's already exist an explaination on talk page header regarding the spelling. So, i recommend the Speedy close of the discussion. 120.188.39.192 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article was created on 1 November 2001 with the spelling color. This is a non-stub version, so MOS:RETAIN applies, although the color/colour debate will undoubtedly continue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think it should be moved to Corn, or maybe Yogurt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.