Talk:Color#Warning

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)

{{edit semi-protected|Color|answered=yes}}

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)

{{atop

| result = Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Remsense ‥ 论 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

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

{{abot}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Color/Archive_8 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)

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) —

{{edit semi-protected|Color|answered=yes}}

Correct the misspelling of chromaticity before citation 44.

Change "In short: In optimal color solids, spectral colors are equivalent to black (0 lightness, 0 chroma), but have full spectral purity (they are located in the horseshoe-shaped spectral locus of the chromaticiy diagram).[44]"

To "In short: In optimal color solids, spectral colors are equivalent to black (0 lightness, 0 chroma), but have full spectral purity (they are located in the horseshoe-shaped spectral locus of the chromaticity diagram).[44]" Amber Diatribe (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} PianoDan (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)