Talk:Color/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Blee" in lead

According to the OED and Wikt:blee this word is from Middle English, and only in "poetical" use at that. In wikt:color it has been "displaced" from the English language. Webster has "Saxon". Why is it in the lead here as an alternative spelling? I've removed it once as uncited, but now it's back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Ianmacm, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the physics of colour. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article. This is not really notable, and is more Wiktionary territory. This is an obscure word, Wikipedia is not Call My Bluff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not intended as an alternate spelling, but a synonym. It was added because it redirects from blee. If a mention is not needed then it's good. Leasnam (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resources which were posted to my Talk page, for reference <<:You can use any dictionary. Here are a few cites: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Blee ; http://www.wordnik.com/words/blee ; http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/blee Leasnam (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)>> Leasnam (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't need a mention. There are many obscure synonyms for common ideas, but Wikipedia isn’t a dictionary. (Wiktionary has an entry on blee; that's enough.) –jacobolus (t) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Color list template

What is the meaning of the "color list" template, please discuss--Thorseth (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please join the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:List_of_Colors instead of starting a new one here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First picture in the article...

The caption on the first picture in the article is kind of weird... "Color is an important part of human expression." The picture is of pencils. It just doesn't make sense. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They DO explicitly show colors, so I see no reason to show otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it seems to apply.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the caption is vacuous. The picture is fine. –jacobolus (t) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture is pretty appropriate. Colour is an important part of human art, etc. And the coloured pencils look cool! 203.97.127.101 (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese spectrum names

The sentence regarding the chinese interpretation of the spectrum says "red, orange yellow, green, blue-green, blue and violet". Should that be "red, orange-yellow, green, blue-green" or "red, orange, yellow, green, blue-green" etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.204 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wavelengths of color.

The ranges given for the visible spectrum in this article are given by a reference to an atmospheric radiation textbook, not an optics textbook. I would like to propose a change of the values to fit optical or psychological scientific definitions. I have two science textbook references to a broader range for the visible spectrum, but I still haven't found digital examples of these values to make reference to. As an additional complication, one reference uses indigo and the other does not. The definition of these colors is, in many cases, chosen arbitrarily as explicitly expressed in the reference given for the current values listed on this page, which, sadly do not actually match those stated in the reference article. Also, neither of these references, nor this article, give any presence to Cyan, which may be the light-blue and blue-green described in the Russian and Chinese perspectives, respectively... but as they have no reference it is difficult to confirm.

The values I've found (in nanometers):

380-436 = Violet, 436-495 = Blue, 495-566 = Green, 566-589 = Yellow, 589-627 = Orange, 627-780 = Red (from Physical Aspects of Colour, P.J. Bouma, 1949)

390-446 = Violet, 446-464 = Indigo, 464-500 = Blue, 500-578 = Green, 578-592 = Yellow, 592-620 = Orange, 620-770 = Red (from The Principles of Optics, Hardy and Perrin, 1932)

I feel the need to point out that discrepancies such as these exist within the scientific community today largely due to a lack of consensus... an absence of communication... This is my attempt to reach out for communication. Perception of color is a biological reaction to a specific range of vibrations in the electromagnetic spectrum. If we fail to accurately understand how we perceive that range, how shall we ever recognize the underlying patterns? Given the ranges I listed above, if one translates them into frequencies through the use of the speed of light as their wave propagation velocity, there is a relationship that becomes apparent: the perceived range of color by humans almost perfectly fits into a binary exponential "octave".

I believe it is important to recognize the sacredness of this gift. Color brings emotion, definition, and, in most cases (WHO estimates 2.6% of the human population as visually impaired), to a large extent, defines our reality. In these days of endless color stimuli, to reach out for renewed recognition of the importance color has played in our evolution as a species, as a society, as a global consciousness seems paramount. The interrelationship between duality and color... between duality and existence itself... is ever present, and for the human race to go on ignoring the underlying patterns of our existence by allowing discrepancies such as these to propagate in our collective consciousness seems a terrible crime.

Luminaux (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The assignment of color names to wavelength ranges is essentially arbitrary. We just need to say which source we're following, and follow it. Most don't include indigo, so I'd leave that out. None include cyan, because that's usually thought of as non-spectral, the color of a wide range of blue and green wavelengths combined. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere I saw a table of the association of color names to wavelength ranges, by several different authors. Such a comparison might be useful somewhere, but it would take making a slightly clever graphic to properly show it, I think. –jacobolus (t) 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Assigning names to the palette of colours is subjective, and varies in different languages. The article is primarily about the physics of colour, and it is misleading to imply that there are generally agreed boundaries for defining wavelengths associated with the words. The spectrum table in the article gives approximations, other sources may vary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I’m not sure that’s quite fair. There are some relatively authoritative assignments of wavelengths to color names. For example, (a) there have been psychophysical experiments to find at which point some large number of observers most commonly put category boundaries when presented with a continuous spectrum, and (b) this 1943 JOSA paper by Kelly originated a very commonly reproduced diagram (for example, I’ve seen variants in documents put out by Adobe and other major companies) assigning color names similar to those used in the ISCC–NBS system, which was a cooperative project sponsored by all the major interested parties in government and industry (in printing, textiles, manufacturing, photography, agriculture, &c. &c.) in the US at the time. –jacobolus (t) 03:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diagram from the Kelly paper, and here is a table from that paper which compares 24 different assignments of color name to wavelength made between 1866 and 1939. –jacobolus (t) 03:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(In case it’s unclear, you’re right of course that it’s subjective and in some ways arbitrary, and we don’t want to imply that there’s some scientifically precise way to draw exact boundaries between color names, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that there’s no agreement, or that some sources aren’t better for Wikipedia’s purposes than others.) –jacobolus (t) 03:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the quick responses, I'm happy to see that there are active editors on this page. I realize that the names and their corresponding "regions" are subjective and/or arbitrarily chosen, but the overall range of color wavelengths perceived by the average human eye should be much more accurately defined. The values I listed above define the red region ending at 770 or 780nm... this is very different from the generalized 700nm currently listed on this page. ~ Luminaux (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The sensitivity of the L cones in nearly zero by 700 nm, but still not quite zero by 770 nm. Anything longer than 660 nm that gets detected is red, but not much gets detected beyond 700 nm. This much is easy to quantify, but there's no discontinuity, so different people specify nominal boundaries different ways. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This just further illustrates my original point... if two fields of optical science can't agree on the outer boundaries of our color perception, how is the general public ever supposed to understand it? I've seen the graph of the cone response, but the discontinuity is still there, from my perspective. The field of optical crystallography requires active use of the human eye and I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would note a larger range if they couldn't reliably measure and discuss it. And as far as the "nominal boundaries" that lay within the overall range... they could be defined by mass-consciousness-testing. The general public could be enabled to respond to a test on what they perceive a series of specifically defined wavelengths to be, essentially casting their vote on what they feel towards different wavelengths. The only problem is having a solid testing platform spread out across the entirety of human consciousness... but we're getting close already... most of the interface screens we use to access the internet embody the RGB color system as defined by the CIE 1931 color space, don't they? How accurate are LEDs and LCDs at producing these three singular wavelengths of Red, Green, and Blue (and Yellow apparently now too)? Why is there only a small reference to the CIE in this article? Wasn't that a public forum to define spectral lines? ~ Luminaux (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs massive expansion and much better explanation, in my opinion, but getting it to a state where I’d be happy with it would take a tremendous amount of work, and there is plenty else to work on, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, so it’s not high on my list of priorities. To answer your question, no, computer displays/televisions/etc. don’t really try to “embody the RGB system as defined by the CIEXYZ color space”. Explaining why that’s a bad description is beyond the scope of this short comment though. –jacobolus (t) 03:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The boundary of "red" in the Kelly paper (and this is fairly typical) is defined as something like the complementary dominant hue to 494 nm. This is typically written something like 494c. Indeed, a “unique red” color, which appears to have no part of yellow or blue in it, is extraspectral, something like 493c. –jacobolus (t) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent documentary about the latest research on colour perception is quite relevant to this. It basically found that colour is perceived by the brain based on experience and the usefullness of knowing of the existance of the colours. For example the Himba of Namibia have only five words to describe different colours and they can not see blue very easily, variously describing it as black (the sky) or white (the blue of water). When asked to pick out the odd coloured card when presented with 11   coloured cards and one   coloured card they could not easily pick the odd card and sometimes said they couldn't see a differently coloured card. Other experiments they conducted indicated that the colour an individual sees for a particular wavelength is not exactly the same colour as that seen by another individual for the same wavelength. I cant remember the scientists names but the paper is written and an editor may be able to find it. Wayne (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

S receptor peak?

In various places I've seen the peak of the S receptor range given as 420nm (this article ) and as 420-440nm (in cone cell). The response graph seems to show the response peaking at 450nm, which is considerably different. What's up with that?

I see estimates from 419 to 450 nm here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The discrepancy, as far as I can tell from reading Stockman & Sharpe (2000), which seems to be the best source to date, depends on what is being graphed/measured. The spectral sensitivity of just the S-cones peaks at about 420 nm, but the lens absorbs some light before it ever reaches the cones, especially at short wavelengths, and so the “cone fundamental” for S-cones (a model for the sensitivity to light coming through the eye) has its peak at something like 440 nm. There’s also inter-observer variation, changes to lens/macular color as people age, variation between the precise center of the retina and areas further out, some genetic variations in the cones, differences between “typical” observers and the color blind, and possible effects based on experiment design, equipment used, random noise, etc. –jacobolus (t) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indigo/Violet

I propose that instead of eliminating indigo while keeping violet, which literally leaves out the section of the spectrum named indigo, we use the term that describes both colors, purple. -Calibas (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Better read purple; it's non-spectral. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured something like that was the case, though in common usage it says I'm correct. I still think it's a good idea to change it to something less confusing for 90% of people who read the article. We can even rename it to purple, and then add a note explaining why for the small fraction of people who don't consider violet to be purple. --Calibas (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The word “purple” is used as a catch-all for colors between red and blue  . In describing a hue circle, it's an appropriate label. The word “violet” is used both to describe colors nearer to blue than red  , and also to describe very short wavelengths. This article is certainly misleading in putting such heavy emphasis on relation of colors to wavelengths up front, since that isn't really the way color is experienced, but in the context of naming wavelengths with color terms, “violet” is appropriate but “purple” would not be. The real solution is to add more material about the organization and experience of color to the front of this article, before the “physics” section. –jacobolus (t) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

black and white

I cruised on in here to resolve a workplace argument about the status of black and white as colours. Sadly the article didn't resolve the dispute (seriously guys - what else is Wikipedia for? :)

If someone knowledgable enough can address this question within the article in an encyclopediac fashion, it would be a welcome addition. Manning (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That black and white are clearly “colors” is implied by every reasonable definition of “color”. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 08:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you come to my office and tell that to the guy who sits next to me? :) Manning (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I bet he doesn't have any argument to offer, let alone definition, only an appeal to tradition ("I learned that at school"). The fact is that black, white and grey are all colours, what they are not is hues (which can be explained as "rainbow colours", or technically wavelengths), and schoolteachers should really learn to make that distinction. In fact, I think this would be an excellent point to include in the article, given that it's such a popular misconception. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's kind of silly to take a position on such an argument. Language usage varies. Plenty of reliable sources contain strings like "white, black, or color", because they think of color as different from white or black. To a color scientist, black and white and gray live in a colorspace like other colors; but color scientists don't determine how language gets used. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Color scheme of optical interference fringes

Such as in:

.

It doesn't seem to be the same as in:

.

It seems more similar to this color scheme:

What is the difference between the two depictions of the color spectrum? The equations for first scheme are described in HSL and HSV; for the second one, I found the formulas in here: [1]. Do you recognize the second formulation? Is it well known? Is it already described somewhere in Wikipedia? I've seen both being used for domain coloring, the first one here, the second one there. I'm looking for a name to label the color scheme seen in optical interference fringes. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Color wheels or circles

It's not a spectrum. It's a bunch of Newton's rings of different wavelengths; there's enough in that article to figure out the spectra of the different colors, which are a bit complicated. Or see what Thomas Young (scientist) said about them in his lecture XXXIX, 1845: [2]. Or it's all worked out here, where it says "To show Newton's rings, and that its color sequence is not a rainbow". Since it's not a cyclic pattern like the other two, it might not be so useful for domain coloring. I don't know if the pattern has a name. Maybe "Newton's rings colors". The one you linked on the wayback machine is also not a spectrum; the spectrum is not circular. You need a color circle, like the one illustrated in the figure to the right, that connects red to blue through the non-spectral purples. I don't know of a good formula in WP for that, but there are lots of color circles on commons. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your pointers, they were very helpful.

I now understand the difference between a color wheel and a color spectrum -- wheel being circular, spectrum open --, and that domain coloring requires the circular one. Furthermore, a color spectrum would leave out non-spectral colors, such as purple, which is useful in a color wheel, since it offers improved discrimination.

I also agree that the colors scheme of optical interference fringes is not ideal for domain coloring. That's because in the latter we need a clear mapping between phase and some sort of hue, while the former exhibits a more complicated color scheme, involving also changes in saturation and luminance/value with varying phase difference.

I think what I was looking for was just a (hue-based) color wheel with less saturation; something like this:

Thanks for your help.Fgnievinski (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

List of colors hatnote

Out of the 6 newest feedbacks on color 5 were looking for lists of colors and didn't find it. I therefor added a link to list of colors in the about hatnote on the top of the article. Ulflund (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "...people everywhere have been shown to perceive colors in the same way[2]"

The reference cited in that statement and the associated references to "Linguistic Relativity" only show that a large collection of people (a "culture") COLLECTIVELY seems to perceive colors in the same way. But in no way does it show that there aren't differences between how two individuals perceive colors. In fact, we know that individuals do in fact have differences in color perception, as shown by the various types of mild-to-profound color blindness that occurs. As a more extreme example, how do we know that my internal perception of, say, purple isn't the same as your internal perception of brown? Does it even mean anything to ask that question?

As someone with moderate red-green color blindness, I can assure you that my perception of red is very similar to my perception of green. Therefore, if you do not have red-green color blindness, then it follows that at least one of my red or green perceptions does not match yours.

I'm not an expert in the field of color, but I am an expert in two fields, plasma physics and economics, both of which have situations where collective behaviors exist that contrast fundamentally in nature with individual phenomena.

Are there any studies that address these questions? If so, I think it would be useful if someone familiar with them could discuss and reference them in this article.Tdshepard (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example of a different perception of colour within a culture is the variation in identification of certain shades of blue and purple. I have noticed that a car standing alone will have some people arguing it is blue while others argue it is purple, when seen with other cars that are obviously blue it becomes either a purplish-blue or a bluish-purple depending on bias. Are we seeing colour differently or were we taught to see them that way? There was a study conducted around two years ago and made into a TV documentary that found that people do not perceive colours in the same way. The study concluded that identification of colours is learned. Wayne (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read an article a while back that explains how individuals with normal color vision do perceive colors the same way. It even went on explaining how it is not possible for individuals with normal color vision to not perceive colors the same way. I'm gonna try to find the article now but no promise.--Krystaleen 03:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I just tracked down the notes I wrote down about the study. Experiments indicated that the colour an individual sees for a particular wavelength is not exactly the same colour as that seen by another individual for the same wavelength. It basically found that colour is perceived by the brain based on individual experience and on how usefull it is to that individual knowing of the existance of various colours. Wayne (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Color Page Move

Per the boxes at the top of this page, debate about how to spell this article, and Wikipedia's wider policy and readership, is unnecessary here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do roughly understand the reason for having the word being spelt COLOR on this page as Wikipedia is primarily active in United States of America. However in UK and a majority of the English speaking commonwealth, the English* spelling of Colour. I do not want to fully move it to the English spelling of COLOUR, as people will rage. Instead why don't we finally create harmony by moving the page to Colour/Color, which recognises both the English and American English spellings. Thank You. Let there be peace on both sides of the Atlantic. I have called it ENGLISH opposed to BRITISH ENGLISH, as in some cases Welsh and Scottish variants can differ. Warner REBORN (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) That explaination really doesn't wash. In any case, this article is properly titled, just as it should be. Local spelling visitations should be noted, but have no place in the article title. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Why is COLOR even allowed? It is all wrong. Just because a bunch of rebels decided to misspell a language it should now be the standard? Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I use Australian English, which is much more like UK English than American English. I can accept that those foreigners in America use spelling that my English teachers would have failed me for using. I can accept that in many Wikipedia articles it hardly matters which form of spelling is used. But for Colour/Color it's almost unbearable. Seeing the word spelt in the American way grates appallingly on my sensibilities. I wish we did have a way of highlighting, at article title level, that half the English speaking world think "color" is just plain wrong. Not an alternative spelling. A wrong spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC) To the majority of English speaking people "colour" is wrong. I don't always agree with spell checkers, but the spell checker is actually right in this case! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) My spellchecker says differently. (Did you not know that one could set them to different language variants?) Can you please define "majority of English speaking people"? (Did you count those among India's 1.2 billion people?) And you actually missed my point. It's the degree of seeming wrongness I was trying to describe. I can cope with seeing "organize", where my teachers taught me "organise", but "color" really irks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "Colour" irks me and the British lost the right to tell us how to spell 238 years ago, they should be grateful to us that they aren't spelling it "farbe"! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not British and I'm not telling you how to spell. I AM telling you how I spell, and that it's not wrong. Nor is your way of spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC) You may not be trying to tell me how to spell but the Irishman above is, and the Irish in particular should be grateful they aren't spelling it farbe. :) John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Please see WP:ENGVAR. While I wish that en.wikipedia had support for dialect options, it doesn't. As long as there isn't a common word and spelling across variants of the language a choice unfortunately needs to be made on which to use, otherwise endless discussions going back and forth are likely. ENGVAR provides the guidelines for cases like this one. PaleAqua (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I would like to change those guidelines, for a very small number of cases; perhaps only one. You might argue that the discussion needs to occur at the page for those guidelines, but I think there is a case for beginning the conversation here at that one case, simply to see if there is any support for my view. I'm really only seeking polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I just noticed that, according to this talk page's header, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. I don't think this is going to be very productive. It reminds me of people who insist that data is plural just because the Latin form is plural, not considering how the word is actually used in English, so they say such things as "the data are" which makes me ask "how many data are there?" John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC) For a very small number of words, perhaps only this one at this stage, I really would like to change the guideline you've just noticed. As I have said above, I can cope with most American spellings, such as "defense", and "aluminum", but "color" just seems so wrong to my brainwashed and aged mind (we are hopefully all brainwashed into "correct" spelling by our teachers, and age is unavoidable for all of us eventually) it actually gets in the way of reading the article. So, I'm not arguing that the spelling of "color" is wrong. It works for you. It doesn't work for me, in a very serious way. I'm just seeing if anyone else feels the same way as I do, and whether there's anything we could do about it. No policy is cast in concrete forever. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Enforce American or British spelling is one of the Perennial proposals. This talk page is not the place to have the debate, because there are many words that would be affected. Not everybody is going to be pleased regardless of which spelling is used.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Is that directed at me? I'm certainly not asking that we enforce American or British spelling. At this point, only one word would be affected by my idea. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC) No, I was simply pointing out the policy. I've hatted this thread because the consensus of past discussions is that it is off topic for this page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I've unhatted it, because you don't seem to have acknowledged what I have been saying. You seem to have seen this as a simple case of arguing about which spelling is correct. That's not what I am trying to discuss at all. Please read my posts above and respond to them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC) It is all in the talk page header. I am British and the article Color was created with the American spelling in November 2001. Like it or loathe it, there is no need to debate whether it should be changed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for proving me right. I am NOT debating whether it should be changed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Since the vast majority of the Egnlish Wikipedia users and editors read and write in American English, all articles should be written in American English unless the subject matter is such that it provides a compelling reason for the article to be written in British or some other regional/local variation. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Can you please define "vast majority of the Egnlish Wikipedia users and editors"? Did you count those among India's 1.2 billion people? HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) You honestly believe there are 1.2 billion people in India who edit Wikipedia in English? John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) No. That would be part of the reason I didn't say that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Please read the talk page header. Color/colour is a form of electromagnetic radiation. This is off topic and will be hatted if it continues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Have you actually read what I have been saying? I am not arguing that one spelling is more correct than another. Nor that one should be favoured at the expense of the other. In fact, my point is quite the opposite to that. It's extremely frustrating to see so many criticisms of what I have been saying that seem to be based on a lack of thorough reading of what I have been saying. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Yes I have. The consensus of past discussions is that there is no point in revisiting this debate, because the article has been Color since its creation in November 2001.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Well, you didn't mention my main point there, so if you did read all my posts, you have not understood them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) I'm out of this thread. Spelling is a non-issue here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) This is an exact quote of what I last responded to: Can you please define "vast majority of the Egnlish Wikipedia users and editors"? Did you count those among India's 1.2 billion people? That implies that the group "users and editors of English Wikipedia" includes 1.2 billion people in India. First you said it, then you turned around and claimed you didn't. The user that started this thread in the first place admitted: Wikipedia is primarily active in United States of America That implies the exact point I last made above, that to most English Wikipedia users color is correct and colour is wrong. As for the other issue, mentioned much earlier in this discussion, if you seriously believe that there are 1.2 billion English speakers in India, you need to do some fact checking! The English used in India is about as relevant as the English used in Mexico. I didn't respond to that initially because it is clearly a non sequitur, there are not 1.2 billion English speakers in India and that has nothing to do with the makeup of English Wikipedia users and editors anyway. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 11:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Please think about the meaning of "those among India's 1.2 billion people". It doesn't mean all of them. And, Wikipedia is active all over the world. I'd be interested though to see more precise readership figures. Another editor in this thread isn't a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Purple

Why do the charts refer to violet also as "purple"? Violet is not purple and purple does not correspond to any part of the spectrum! These articles are supposed to present facts, not common misconceptions. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have been corrected already. I also corrected another misuse of the word purple and think this is now correctly used throughout the article. Ulflund (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A multitude of problems with this article.

I'm not sure where to begin. This article is HORRIBLY written! Color is NOT "the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow, etc." It is a visual perception AND a (visual) property. Confusing the two is just wrong, as is confounding the two. Color, as an abstract property (ie unrelated to the things which have it, without context), is not something that non-humans have/use (afaik), so to use "humans" to imply that color is broader than a human experience is misleading. The ENGLISH LANGUAGE categories "called red, blue, yellow, etc." have no more significance than OTHER categorizations used by OTHER cultures, and are NOT in any way fundamental to the definition of color. It is FALSE that "Color derives from the spectrum of light (distribution of light power versus wavelength) interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors." ..."with the spectral sensitivities" ????? "interacting with the eye"??? The eye doesn't act ON the emr, the emr acts (one-way) ON the eye, there's no "inter-". Color "derives" from both our eyes' response(s) to light and how the resulting electro-chemical signals are interpreted and processed by our brains. There seems to be zero appreciation of the basic fact that color is a mental construct which we assign as a (static/stable) property of objects. The color of an object depends on how our brains interpret the signals our eyes receive, the physical transformation from emr to electrochemical signals is only a part of the story; in terms of the energy used by our optical system, it is a minor part. Ignoring the major role that our brains play in this process is just wrong. I could write a couple of more pages listing all that is wrong with this, its just so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.79.240 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Color. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061128184104/http://www.accidentalmark.com:80/research/papers/Hirakawa05WBICIP.pdf to http://www.accidentalmark.com/research/papers/Hirakawa05WBICIP.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071102025015/http://www.esrc.ac.uk:80/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/events/FSS/2006/science.aspx?ComponentId=14867&SourcePageId=14865 to http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/events/FSS/2006/science.aspx?ComponentId=14867&SourcePageId=14865
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110907151050/http://www.fadu.uba.ar:80/sitios/sicyt/color/bib.htm to http://www.fadu.uba.ar/sitios/sicyt/color/bib.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514200313/http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/nat_hist&CISOPTR=1733&REC=1 to http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/nat_hist&CISOPTR=1733&REC=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514200308/http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/nat_hist&CISOPTR=1559&REC=1 to http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/nat_hist&CISOPTR=1559&REC=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

The caption under the image for Subtractive Color Mixing is very misleading. You do not add Magenta and Yellow to make Red, rather you SUBTRACT Yellow from Magenta...... and SUBTRACTING all three primary colors yields black (not adding)

73.39.247.19 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Just reading this caption under the image, I find even this version somewhat misleading: I would have thought that you'd subtract blue from magenta to get red. (i.e. red + blue = magenta, so magenta - blue = red). Might I suggest a different wording such as "subtracting yellow and magenta together" (in keeping with the format of the phrase "subtracting all three primary colors together") - or perhaps better still, replace "subtracting" with "combining" - i.e.: "Subtractive color mixing: combining yellow with magenta yields red; combining all three primary colors together yields black". --Greenwoodtree 21:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505034940/http://www.wiley.com:80/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470012161.html to http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470012161.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Information About Color Perception In Non-Humans

User:Dicklyon has reverted corrected information in the article. The mantis shrimp does not have "12 spectral receptor types thought to work as multiple dichromatic units", the reverted edits point to the Nature article which summarizes a Science article showing that how difficult it is to interrogate color perception in non-human animals and states explicitly:

The results from our experiments suggest that the stomatopods do not use a processing system of multiple dichromatic comparisons as previously hypothesized...

Statements about bees require more detailed qualifications beyond the scope of the article. It would make far more sense to avoid (incorrect) speculation about perception. I'd like to understand if User:Dicklyon considered the validity of the statements that are currently in the article before he performed his reversion.Maneesh (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not consider the validity. I just reverted what looked like a removal of a bunch of sourced information. It would be great if you could correct it per the source. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

These reversions also remove the corrections to the obviously incorrect statements such as: "the three cone cell types that respond to three bands of light: long wavelengths, peaking near 564–580 nm (red);". To be absolutely clear, 564-580nm light does not appear as red. Now how does the proposed correspondence between RGB color space and human trichromacy make sense? I can make no sense about the sentence that is implying chroma is somehow represented in CMYK. These incorrect sentences are right up near the top on such a fundamental topic as color. The edits I had put in fix things appropriately by leaving things concise and avoiding incorrectness.Maneesh (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do work on fixing, but don't just remove. Probably what "red" meant there was another way to refer to the "long" cones, but that needs to be clarified. I agree the RGB–LMS correspondence as described there is a stretch (that is, the correspondence is through a matrix transformation, not an identity). What do the cited sources say about that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs are simply littered with incorrect information. The correspondence between L, M and S peak sensitivity and and R, G and B is spurious (as already stated, the peak wavelength of the L cone does not have a peak absorbance in "red" wavelengths but in "yellow-green"). The information about butterflies, bees and the mantis shrimp ranges from speculation to simply incorrect. The statement about CMYK dimensions and chroma is nonsense. There is no real fix other than to remove incorrect information. Why would anyone consider going into detail about color perception in the mantis shrimp in the third paragraph on an article that is on a broad a topic as "color"?Maneesh (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Misleading info

This is just my opinion, but the third image says that the right square is darker than the left, whereas this is clearly not true. Maybe it should be removed, as it is misleading. Again, this is just my opinion, so don't judge. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Meaning the larger square and the smaller square, not the two small ones. If this is what the image meant, then maybe I judged it wrong. But if not, it should still be reviewed. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It says that the small square on the right looks darker, which it does, but that the two small squares are actually the same, which they are. What part do you find misleading? It seems pretty clear to me! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rod vision

Wavelength responsiveness of short (S), medium (M) and long (L) wavelength cones compared to that of rods (R)

Perhaps the following graph should be included to clarify role of rod cells in color vision→
2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E1C0:A059:2D66:D4C4 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

The word colour should take precedence over color as it is the original spelling. The American word of color is a regional variant and shouldn't take precedence over the original as it does so in this article. So please change the order so that colour comes before color. Also the Title should be colour instead of color to reflect my previous point. 2A00:23C1:AD81:7E00:847:97A4:1F22:E5FF (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done the variety of English is determined as explained in WP:ENGVAR, and once set, should not be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227034508/http://www.cie.co.at/publ/abst/17-4-89.html to http://www.cie.co.at/publ/abst/17-4-89.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On what basis "color" is preferred over "colour"?

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.

---

Colour is used probably in larger parts world. Tejasvi Singh Tomar (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See the template at the top of the page; this is beyond the scope of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Tejasvi Singh Tomar—it is not a matter of "color" being preferred over "colour". The article has to chose one spelling or the other. For some background information on how such a decision might be made see MOS:ENGVAR. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

67% f Native English speakers spell it "color". John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@John Alan Elon Proof? Ned (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2018 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Please add the following external link (relevant open-source code for COLOR research):

• Colorlab MATLAB toolbox for color science computation and accurate color reproduction (by Jesus Malo and Maria Jose Luque, Universitat de Valencia). It includes CIE standard tristimulus colorimetry and transformations to a number of non-linear color appearance models (CIE Lab, CIE CAM, etc.). Dilbert36 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does a rainbow appear when light goes through a prism?

White light has a combination of different colors. Such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. All the colors have different wavelengths. When light moves through a prism, all the colors in the light go in all different directions. When they go in different directions, it becomes a rainbow. Here's what happens inside a prism: Violet have the shortest wavelength, so it moves downward. Indigo has the second shortest wavelength, so it moves a little more up than violet. Blue has a medium wavelength, so it moves a little more up than indigo. Green also has a medium wavelength, but it is a little bigger than blue. It moves more up than blue. Yellow has a big wavelength, so it moves higher up than green. Orange has a big wavelength, but bigger than yellow. It moves more up than yellow. And finally, red has the biggest wavelength. It moves the highest in the prism. That is what happens inside a prism. If you have a dreamcatcher that is made of glass, that is a prism. That's why you see rainbows up on your ceiling every morning. Do you have anything else that is a prism in your room? If you are not sure, ask your parents, they will tell you, I promise! If they aren't sure, go back on wiki, and I will tell you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.245.187 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Color for deletion

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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019

the wrong way to spell colour 79.76.113.112 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

See the template at the top of the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

change: (see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English])
to: (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English)
Even though the line is inside a comment tag, it messes with scripts trying to parse the document.

Aurhe (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done – thanks for catching this. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Simple grammar edit

The following text from paragraph 3: Honey bees and bumblebees for instance have trichromatic color vision sensitive to ultraviolet but is insensitive to red.

The "is", 4th word from the end should be removed.

I'm new here, and this is really complicated. Sorry if I didn't specify this "semi-protected edit request" correctly.

•  Done: I've adjusted the wording in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, changing "is" to "are" is wrong too.

"Honey bees and bumblebees have trichromatic color vision sensitive to ultraviolet but are insensitive to red" We're talking about the color vision, which is singular, so "are" is wrong. It should read "Honey bees and bumblebees have trichromatic color vision sensitive to ultraviolet but insensitive to red." Sharpround (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the word "are".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

false, misleading, confused

the definition of "color" offered on this page (as of9/11/20) is incorrect. "color" is not "the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple." this is the colormaking attribute of HUE.

"color" is always specified as a triple of the three colormaking attributes: lightness/brightness, hue and chroma/saturation. the back slashes indicate terms that properly apply either to surfaces or objects (lightness, chroma) as opposed to the terms that apply to lights or illumination (brightness/saturation). saying something is "orange" only describes its hue, not its color. is it a light or dark orange, strongly or weakly chromatic? the problem is obvious because a "dark, chromatic orange" is not colloquially labeled "orange" but BROWN. the fact that "brown" is omitted from the category list, and the categories are limited to spectral hue categories, confirms that the concept being defined is HUE, not "color".

COLOR is the "sensory attribute that produces discrimination or contrast between homogenous visual areas perceived as having an identical size and shape." "homogenous" excludes discrimination based on texture, gradient, pattern and so on; size and shape excludes any dimensional or spatial difference. COLOR has nothing to do with the attribute that "allows discrimination among otherwise identical objects," as i believe is stated elsewhere on wikipedia, because once you have identified the objects as identical, you obtain no clarifying traction from the term "otherwise."

the problems compound on further reading, and i offer only a handful of examples:

• color is not specified by wavelengths, either monochromatic or compounded as a broadband emittance profile. color is a subjective, sensory quality: "pain" is not specified as as categories of flame or blade. the same "wavelengths" can appear to be different hues, depending on how they are displayed.

• the metric space referred to as a (1931) "color space" is a *chromaticity diagram*, and while the colorimetric literature refers to locations in a chromaticity diagram as "colors", this is a term of art that allows metameric reflectance or emittance profiles, and contrast colors such as orange and brown, yellow and olive, white, gray and black to be at the same location in the diagram and therefore the same "color". (the specification of "colors" within the chromaticity diagram refers, for example, to the specification of chromaticities that can stand for colors in signal lights, instrumentation lights, etc.) locations in a chromaticity are absolutely not color in the sense intended by this article. [farther down, the figure caption "The CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram" is simply word salad. there is a 1931 xyY color space, which adds the luminance factor (Y, correlated with brightness) to the normalized chromaticity dimensions x and y, but that is not pictured.]

• objects do not have "emission spectra" except in the case they emit light, which means they are lights; or in the case they fluoresce or are energetically stimulated; neither example is considered object color per se.

• the RGB gamut defines the range of colors that can be produced in a video display by three monochromatic lights (phosphors, LEDs, etc.); the lights in themselves have no bald equivalence to the trichromatic photoreceptors of the eye; and "RGB" has no common significance either as a gamut specification or as a device color capability.

• a similar confusion appears as "other color spaces, such as in the CMYK color model" which is not a color space or a "color model" but a pigment gamut, and ALL of the dimensions, not "one of the dimensions" relates to a color's chroma -- for example, an equal mixture of CYM is achromatic or "colorless" -- and the last pigment (K) relates to the color's lightness, not its "colorfulness" (a metric which is back calculated in colorimetry either from saturation and lightness or from lightness and chroma, and therefore has no inherent measurement utility).

• the "science of color" is termed COLOR SCIENCE. chromatics is an antiquated or recherche term for certain "color theories," especially those of the 19th century; and colorimetry is the technology of COLOR DIFFERENCE MEASUREMENT.

• the caption "Continuous optical spectrum rendered into the sRGB color space" is incoherent; what is probably meant by "optical" is a refraction (prism) spectrum -- although the hue spacing of the diagram shows clearly that it is a diffraction (grating) spectrum and not a prism spectrum.

i regret the impression of carping but there is a vertiginous compilation of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and what can charitably be called illiteracies throughout this article, and i infer the page is locked because of the dogpile of incompetence that produced it.

Drollere (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Change "color" to "colour" -this is controversial, but proper- 24.231.67.236 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: See the template at the top of the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Change: This reflection is governed by the object's physical properties such as light absorption, emission spectra, etc.

to: This reflection is governed by the object's light absorption and emission spectra properties, which are reactions to photon excitement of atoms and molecules. 104.187.54.241 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

External links and sources should be in 2 separate tabs

In my opinion, the external links and the sources should be in 2 separate tabs to avoid confusion over what is an external link and what is a source. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

typo?

The second paragraph refers to "long wavelengths, peaking near 564–580 nm (red)", whereas the rest of the article seems to indicate that the peak wavelength for the red color should be around 660-680 nm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelyworm (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is puzzling, as the median wavelength of red light is usually given as around 660-680 nm as you pointed out. The sources in the lead section are referring to perception by the human cone cell types; maybe this is different. Unfortunately both of the sources for this part of the article (cites 1 and 2) are books and I don't have them to hand.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See also Trichromacy#Mechanism_of_trichromatic_color_vision and the table there. I think this is referring to the way that the human eye perceives colour, rather than the actual wavelengths.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Coulor are fake and so in the news 159.242.107.133 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Iñupiaq version of this page has been created

There is a Iñupiaq version of this page about Colors, and it was made by me. You can see it here: ik.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kalaq And you can add it by adding this at the bottom of the page: [ [ ik:Kalaq ] ] (ignore spaces) Algunpersona123453 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is in the Iñupiaq language. I was a bit worried that the page contains only diagrams and images and does not have any text at the moment. Would it be possible to add some?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

A change in the fist paragraph of the article from:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

A color (North American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) can be conceptual and/or real. A set of colors is a collection of distinct elements, which can be a set of real colorants or colored lights that can be mixed in varying amounts to produce a gamut of colors. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: I don't think this is an improvement on the current wording. The proposed opening sentence is vague and there is no need to make a distinction between real and conceptual colours.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (2)

First sentence from:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), usually classified as primary color, is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: Colour is not usually classified as primary color. They are different Wikipedia articles so there is no need to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (3)

More clear with regards to the use of the word perception. Also reference the article primary color early in the article of color.

Change:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of color vision described through primary color and color categories with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Same reason as the above section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)