Talk:List of colors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Color WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

To-do list for List of colors:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Unify formatting. Some colors are described using the Colort macro set, whereas some are not. Providing a unified format will make this page more machine readable, which will make it a more valuable resource. Add missing colors: (articles could be made first) Zephyr103 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Tawny It's actually Tenné and it's there. Elevenzeroonnechat / what i've done 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Tawny article says it is pale... but Tenné isn't pale. I put Tawny in brackets next to Tenné since it is a fairly common colour name (in animals I've heard of) Zephyr103 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Taupe — what the heck is it? Foliage Green, the base green for the new Army Combat Uniform. Flat Dark Earth, the USSOCOM standard camouflage color. Check that CMYK and HSV values correspond to RGB values (not necessarily a symmetric transformation) (CMYK values have been removed. See discussion) Zephyr103 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Rationalize capitalization

Contents 1 Colors without articles 1.1 Light brown 1.2 Dark xxx 1.3 Pale xxx 2 More colours 2.1 Russet 2.2 Tawny 2.3 Flax 2.4 Safety orange 2.5 Raw Sienna & Red Ochre 2.6 Drab 3 Gamma corrected? 4 Sorting 5 Annotating 6 Python script 7 Colors without Wikipedia articles 8 Buff 9 HSV Updates 31-Dec-2004 9.1 Heliotrope 9.2 Periwinkl 9.3 Color Coordinate Confusion 10 Source? 11 Magenta 12 What is this article? 13 Working slow 14 Safety Orange correction 15 Organized by family instead of alphabetically 16 International Klein Blue 17 Isolation? 18 Inclusion of colors 19 chocolate and cinnamon 20 green & blue? 21 What to include 22 Page importance 23 Missing colors 24 Am I Grue (the Wanderer)? 25 External Links 26 Mismatch with 'Dark slate gray' article 27 list of colors

[edit] Colors without articles

The page says this is for colors with associated articles. I'd assume that means direct links, not redirected links.

[edit] Light brown

(redirects to brown)

[edit] Dark xxx

(redirects to xxx most or all of the time)

I'm removing most/all of the following (if they redirect or aren't direct links) Zephyr103 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Name	Sample	Hex triplet	RGB			HSV
Dark blue		#0000C8	0	0	139	240	100	55
Dark brown		#654321	101	67	33	30	67	40
Dark cerulean		#08457E	8	69	126	209	94	49
Dark chestnut		#986960	152	105	96	10	37	60
Dark coral		#CD5B45	205	91	69	10	66	80
Dark goldenrod		#B8860B	184	134	11	43	94	72
Dark green		#013220*	1	50	32	158	98	20
Dark Indigo		#310062	49	0	98	270	100	38
Dark Khaki		#BDB76B	189	183	107	56	43	74
Dark Olive		#556832*	85	104	50	81	52	41
Dark pastel green		#03C03C	3	192	60	138	98	75
Dark Peach		#FFDAB9	255	218	185	28	27	100
Dark pink		#E75480	231	84	128	342	64	91
Dark salmon		#E9967A	233	150	122	15	48	91
Dark Scarlet		#560319	86	3	25	344	97	34
Dark slate gray		#708090	112	128	144	210	22	56
Dark spring green		#177245	23	114	69	150	80	45
Dark tan		#918151	145	129	81	45	44	57
Dark tangerine		#FFA812	255	168	18	38	93	100
Dark Tea Green		#BADBAD	186	219	173	103	21	86
Dark Terra cotta		#CC4E5C	204	78	92	354	55	55
Dark turquoise		#116062	17	96	98	181	83	38
Dark violet		#423189	66	49	137	252	64	54
Deep Magenta		#CC00CC	204	0	204	300	100	80
Denim		#1560BD	21	96	189	213	89	74
Dodger blue		#1E90FF	30	144	255	210	88	100

[edit] Pale xxx

I'm removing most/all of these. Zephyr103 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Name	Sample	Hex triplet	RGB			HSV
Pale Blue		#AFEEEE	175	238	238	180	26	93
Pale brown		#987654	152	118	84	30	45	60
Pale chestnut		#DDADAF	221	173	175	358	22	87
Pale cornflower blue		#ABCDEF	171	205	239	210	28	94
Pale magenta		#F984E5	249	132	229	310	47	98
Pale pink		#FADADD	250	218	221	354	13	98
Pale red-violet		#DB7093	219	112	147	340	49	86
Pale taupe		#BC987E	188	152	126	25	33	74

[edit] More colours

[edit] Russet

The page is missing Russet (Brown with a reddish tinge)

[edit] Tawny

The page is missing Tawny ( a light brown to brownish orange colour)

I've put it in brackets next to Tenné - but maybe the colors aren't exactly the same and more colour info could be added to Tawny and then it could have a separate link here. Zephyr103 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flax

A pale grayish yellow. but i cannot find a color palate for it. Can someone add it with an image?

It was listed at one point, IIRC, but I removed it because there was no article on the color. If there is an article on it, it should be listed, otherwise not. Tuf-Kat 01:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Red-link it then :-P Kim Bruning 13:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Safety orange

I'd add Safety orange, but I don't know how to do the conversion. There is no Hex number on the page. •Zhatt• 21:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raw Sienna & Red Ochre

A couple of earthy colors that could be included (I think they have merit)... however, Raw Sienna has no Wikipedia article, only a Wiktionary article (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raw_sienna) where it is said to be #AE6938. Red Ochre has an article, but no listed co-ordinate of any color space. -- Fëaluinix 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drab

Apparently it was once defined as a color somewhere between olive and puce (info like this and more gathered from the great book - Color: A Natural History of the Palette, by Victoria Finlay.)

[edit] Gamma corrected?

Are these colors gamma corrected? If not, then the values are correct and (most of) the visuals are incorrect. If so, then (most of) the values are incorrect and the visuals are correct. I am assuming they are not gamma corrected, as many displays require different gamma settings; The majority of displays work with 2.5 gamma, if one had to choose a default. Whatever the case, it should be explicitly stated somewhere in the article. If they are not gamma corrected as I am assuming, it is weird to think that the colors shown are not the actual colors! 137.186.22.226 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That concerns me as well. Moreover, this is being used on the "web" and the web has a well defined colour space (sRGB), so there is no issue about different displays. Also, as far as I know the #rrggbb notation is only used for sRGB colours. Incidentally I'm not sure where 2.5 comes from; I've always understood the typical CRT to have a gamma of about 2.2 and that is the value used in the sRGB correction - I wonder: is 2.5 is someone's rounding up of 2.2. My feeling is that, both here, and in the template used for the individual colours, the precise colours spaces need to be defined. --David Woolley 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed useless to speak of RGB-triplets (or HSV or CMYK) without stating the colorspace they are in. It is the same as stating "I weigh 68." 68 what? stones? kilograms?

Currently used gammas are 2.2 for windows and 1.8 for macs. 83.160.162.119 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tested my monitor at work not too long ago, and it's gamma was 2.5 (2.45 I think, but don't quote me on that; whatever it was, it rounded to 2.5.) At any rate, whether it is 2.2 or 2.5, gamma makes a HUGE difference. The colors are completely different, not just a different brightness, but a different R:G:B ratio entirely. 24.222.121.193 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"but some argue that the actual sample colors displayed are incorrect due to lack of"? Is this really even an argument? They are displayed incorrectly if the display device does not have a gamma of 1.0 (linear), unless the colors are gamma corrected to the display devices gamma. I'm not sure if someone believes this to be incorrect? Please explain! 24.222.121.193 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: "A controversial view is that the actual color values below are correct, but the actual colors displayed are incorrect due to lack of gamma correction."? How is this controversial? Notinasnaid, can you please explain how the actual color values can be displayed correctly on a monitor, without a gamma of 1.0, properly without gamma correction? As far as I know, it is impossible by definition. 24.222.121.193 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• If a view is not shared by everyone, then that view is "controversial". The use of the word is therefore correct. I do not share the view that the colors displayed are "incorrect", or at least not because of any gamma issues. At this point, let's not embark on why, but let's seek more discussion on what other people think. Notinasnaid 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that one person's disagreeing necessarily makes something controversial, but it's possible that there really is wide disagreement on this point. I don't know enough about gamma correction to join the technical part of this discussion. However, it seems that sentence is there mainly to warn users that the color on their screen isn't necessarily the actual, "official" color. If that's the case, let's reword and eliminate the gamma correction reference (which is confusing to most people who don't know what that is anyway). Something like "Note: Colors vary depending on output device." is really all that's needed. We can always provide a link to the Gamma correction article if more information is needed. If we need this sentence for some other reason, can someone please explain why? -- Laura S | talk to me 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw the Gamma Correction section - must not have been to this page in a while. This is definitely overkill. Most readers are not even going to understand it. I feel a need to reiterate what I just said - a simple notice that these colors aren't going to look the same for everyone, and that no one should take them as 100% accurate. Link to the technical explanation. Then leave it at that. But two paragraphs of technical detail about gamma before the list even starts is a little off-putting. -- Laura S | talk to me 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid, please share how you hold the view that colors that are not gamma corrected are displayed properly on a display without a gamma of 1.0? Just use a 50% gray color as an example, and please show how this works. As far as I know, it is impossible by definition (not opinion). 24.222.121.193 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If we can agree on "Note: Colors vary depending on the gamma of the output device", with a link to gamma correction, then this is sufficent! I agree it is not this article's responsibility to explain gamma correction.24.222.121.193 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the article. Let me know what you think. Notinasnaid, is this (what's in my last edit) still controversial to you, or is it OK? Thanks. 24.222.121.193 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes me happy! Although as always I reserve the right to complain at a later date :) By the way, 24.222.121.193, you contribute enough that it would be totally worth your while to get an account. (Here are some good reasons to get an account) -- Laura S | talk to me 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to me to hinge on the definition of "correct". I hope I am able to present your argument correctly here, please say if I have not.

Your definition of "correct" is that the R,G,B components of a color should be direct, linear, controls of the brightness of those components. So 50% red, 50% green, 50% blue will be a grey with 50% of the brightness of 100%. A gamma value of 0.0 is therefore necessary to see the color correctly. Any real world display which does not adjust gamma to 1.0 (or use software for that effect) displays all colors incorrectly by this definition.

My definition of "correct" is "display as intended". All web colors and many other colors are specified using sRGB. sRGB defines primaries and defines a gamma of 2.2. So the colors were chosen (by the W3C, creators of HTML standards, and by others) in an expectation of gamma 2.2. The colors will only be a proper match if you are using a monitor that is calibrated, and doing color management, to map to the primaries and gamma actually in use. However, sRGB colors look about right on a monitor with gamma of about 2.2, and would look wildly wrong if simply displayed with gamma 1.0. On most monitors, colors like gray (50%,50%,50% as written) display in a color that is close to, but not exactly, correct by the definitions of the HTML color schemes (around 21% intensity).

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Color moves towards sRGB as the color standard for display in its web pages, so it becomes more difficult to state unconditionally that the colors shown, selected in sRGB, are incorrect except by stating this is a controversial view; or by defining exactly what is meant by correct.

I hope this clarifies why I have been struggling to change and/or understand the original article wording. Notinasnaid 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid, thank you. I think you understand my point of view exactly. (For clarification, where you mention gamma of 0.0 you mean gamma of 1.0. I know this was just a typo.) And, now I understand YOUR point of view! I was assuming that the HEX and RGB values in this list were linear based, which is what everything I said was based on. If this is not true, then everything I said does not apply. So, are the RGB and HEX values in this color list linear-based and not gamma corrected? 24.222.121.193 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

Suggestions: list can be sorted alphabetically, another column for RGB value can be added. Jay 14:53, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could it be sorted spectrally from red to violet? Of course this won't work for the browns but we could have two lists: one for the colours that can be so listed and an alphabetical one for those which can't. - Jimp 24May05

[edit] Annotating

I suggest adding a list of objects associated with each colour - To make the list more comprehensible. Few people can work with colours abstractly or even visually - We need to associate them to objects.

[edit] Python script

Anyone with some time on their hands can use this old python program to calculate color values based on hex triplets (which can be found in the page source) : User:Kim_Bruning/colorspace.py.

Cut and paste the source code into a file, chmod +x and use. :-)

Hmm, else maybe I'd make a CGI or so, but seems a bit of a waste of effort, since it's only going to be used only once again, and after that very rarely.

Hope this helps anyhow! Kim Bruning 13:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Colors without Wikipedia articles

Somebody has a rule that this article cannot have ghost links in the color column. But what if somebody wants to create an article for a color?? Any ghost links to colors anywhere in Wikipedia?? 66.245.24.124 02:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The line at the top of the page reads "colors that have articles in Wikipedia". The article about the color is written first, then the color is added to the list, not vice versa.

And I recommend that you sign up for an account. Denelson83 02:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there weren't such a rule, I think the list would quickly get very long and unwieldy. Wiktionary is probably a better place for a complete list of colors, whereas Wikipedia is a good home for colors with encyclopedic merit. Tuf-Kat 13:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

No option for Prussian Blue or French Blue? I'm sure I've seen those colors referenced a thousand times.

[edit] Buff

Just added Buff (colour). Can someone who knows how to create the {{Swatch}}, and the missing values in the table here, please add them! When done, Image:Buff.jpg can be deleted. Thanks - MPF 15:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Worked it out - MPF 16:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HSV Updates 31-Dec-2004

Beige; had 0,0,0 (black) provided HSV.

Chocolate and cinnamon> the color boxes are uncorrect: Chocolate is shown like cinnamon color in real life and cinnamon like chocolate (darker)

Cobalt; my computed value varied in 1 digit; typo?

Khaki; HSL value instead of HSV value.

Navy Blue; HSL value instead of HSV value.

Tan; HSV I computed is different; maybe RGB change w/o HSV change.

CoyneT 03:57, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heliotrope

The RGB values and HSV values are not consistent. Someone with an artsy eye needs to correct this.

[edit] Periwinkl

The RGB values and HSV values are not consistent. Someone with an artsy eye needs to correct this.

[edit] Color Coordinate Confusion

In looking around various colors and pigments, I note that there is a serious lack of consistency in the way in which color coordinates are presented. For example, in various places I see hex triplet, RGB, HLS (which some are calling HSL), HSV, and/or CMYK. However, there does not seem to be any consistency in which of these are used, or how these are used.

For example:

• In CMYK, some persons are using 0-100 (as in %) for the elements of the coordinate, while other persons are using 0-255.
• In HLS/HSV, some persons are using (0-360,0-100,0-100) (degrees,percent,percent), but others are using (0-240,0-240,0-240) (as in MS Windows).
• I've also seen confusion in the color spaces, where (see my earlier entry) someone entered HLS coordinates into a space intended for HSV.

In both cases, articles here in wiki (HLS, HSV and CMYK specify the use of 0.000-1.000 (as in percentage, but 1.000=100%). Shouldn't we be consistent to this regardless of real-world (Windows) usage or the niceties of percentage representation (using 100 instead of 1.0)?

There are also such peculularities as, in the case of this list, where the hex triplet and RGB values (in two cases) don't agree for a particular entry.

Then, in black, where 0-255 is being used for the CMYK entry there is an entry for "registration black" in which the CMYK values appear to be for white rather than black. (Afternote: This was a misinterpretation on my part; 255,255,255,255 is black. Just a strange way to code it...not really standard CMYK.)

What can be done to standardize all of this?

All the CMYK values should be striked out - they are meaningless. Most of these colors names here are referring to computer display RGB sets, and have no bearing with inks. Whereas there is a single matrix to convert between RGB and HSV, there are more than one way to convert RGB to CMYK, with Look-Up Tables depending on the inks. A lot of naïve users will for instance work in Photoshop in CMYK even though their output is never in CMYK inks. Furthermore the CMYK gamut is tiny compared with RGB, and you are losing color precision when working in CMYK. If you think that all you have to do is dial in the RGB value in Photoshop and read the equivalent in CMYK to print that here, you don't know what you're doing. Please read a book. Ppanzini 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it would be nice if there was a macro you could use, like the category macro for example, in which all you have to enter is the RGB and the rest of the values are displayed in a standard format.CoyneT 02:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(moved CoyneT's comments from top of page, not entirely sure I got them all in one chunk) There's not really anyone maintaining this page, CoyneT, as far as I know, so feel free to do whatever you want to standardize the formatting of the info. If you have any questions about manipulating the table syntax, feel free to let me know or leave a question on my talk page. Your macro idea is a good one, though I wouldn't have a clue how to implement it. Tuf-Kat 23:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

I've only looked at a few of the color names, but none provided a source for its definition (RGB etc.). Some said it was an approximation only at least. I then thought the author(s) quietly assumed X11 color names (as computer graphic artists tend to do), but not all of the names here appear in that list (and vice versa). I know of a few instances where the same English color name stands for different RGB (or whatever) values, e.g. X11 vs. Crayola or X11 vs. this list (Khaki etc.). Crissov 11:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree totally - see my paragraphs below.Ppanzini 04:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magenta

Should it be replaced with Fuchsia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RGB_colours#Standard_color_names Lists fuchsia as 00FF00, not magenta.--Aioth 12:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

0x00FF00 is Green in RGB. (see? R:00, G:FF, B:00), perhaps you mean 0xFF00FF? And that html color names scheme is strangeish, though I can guess at why they might use those names. Light primaries and secondaries are called red, green, blue and cyan, magenta, yellow respectively, so the naming is correct. Kim Bruning 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RGB_colours#Standard_color_names list, the names are derived from the HTML standard (you can see the source reference at this link: HTML 4.01 Standard: Colors). For some weird reason, the designers of the HTML standard named it "fuchsia", rather than "magenta", which is why that name is shown on that list. CoyneT 23:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, looking at that article, I see that the link (identified as SRGB) should be leading to the Standard; it is broken. CoyneT 23:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) My mistake; it is the W3C article itself which is broken, not the wiki page. CoyneT

[edit] What is this article?

Are these Windows system colours? CSS colour keywords? Netscape web-safe palette keywords? We can't just say that "amber is #FFBF00". We have to say who calls #FFBF00 "amber"? —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 21:31 Z

This particular article is simply a list of articles about colours. The specific information you suggest for any given colour should be in the appropriate article. If you know, for example, whence comes the definition for amber as "#FFBF00" please add it to that article. --Phil | Talk 10:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Z. makes the point clear. See my interventions below.Ppanzini 04:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working slow

Hey, I am trying to edit things little to help and all...but I am from work and someone is passing back and remove wht i am creating BEFORE I get to finish what i am doing. I am ESL, and at work...gimme a chance, alright? If I am editing and five minutes later the article I was trying to document further is deleted...I will get so discouraged...I'll just give up. Is it too much to ask? Thanks, Zab

Posted by user:207.107.15.2 on 19:40, October 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Zab, I didn't know you're ESL and taking your time, but when a Wiki editor sees an article without any content or links that don't belong, they get removed. What you could do is create an article in anouther program, such as word, and paste it into Wikipedia, or, if you're editing a article, use the edit lock template to stop others from interfearing. Also, you might want to consider registering, as users editing with only their IP address appear as if they may be vandals. Zhatt 22:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite alright! I was just stating, not taking it personal. I prefered staid anonymous because I wanted to help without the credit. Just helping. I am following your advise. *rolls sleeves* Now, what /is/ and what /is/ not appropriated here, just to be sure I wont work on something that is not wishable and would be better in wikidictionary(Just related to this List of Color). Thanks! --E-zab 17:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you're want to work towards a name for each of the web colors, and I assume an article to go with each. Many of the web-safe colors already have names, but they do not warrant an article each, as there is not enough information about them individually. If you would like to add some information about the web colors, I would suggest working on the Web colors article itself.

Also, try not to write each sentence on a new line. It takes up space and makes it harder for impaired people who use text-reading programs. Thanks, Zhatt 18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Orange correction

The swatch for Safety Orange on this page was listed as FF4F00, which didn't look quite right. The actual article for the color said it was FF9900, and I corrected the swatch to match the article.

Liastnir 12:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organized by family instead of alphabetically

It would be more useful if this page was organized by family, e.g. all the red-like colours in one section, all the blue-like colours, etc. instead of alphabetical. If we can agree to this, I can help reorganizing them into broad categories.--Sonjaaa 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I don't think in color groups, I think alphabetically. It all depends who you want it to be useful to. Also, such a rearrangement is likely to lead to duplication, as people look only in the place where the color is in their mindset, and add it, while it is actually in a different group. And I don't think duplication is desirable. Notinasnaid 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sonjaaa because if someone was looking for a colour to paint their front room with, and wanted a blue, they would have to scroll down until they saw the colour.--Elevenzeroone 13:35, 25 November 2006

Wikipedia would be a very bad choice for color selection for painting the front room. Its colors don't correspond to those available from commercial paint manufacturers! Notinasnaid 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. Ah well you know what I meant. Elevenzeroonne^{chat / what i've done} 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an alphabetical list, and shades of colors has them grouped. Zephyr103 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I support having colors listed in families. In fact, I support having colors listed alphabetically as well. In addition, to force one often used style of presentation over the other is POV. There's nothing wrong with using multiple sort styles. Any useful application program would do that. If multiple sort styles make the article too big, a complementary article, such as List of colors by hue or some other designation can be created and linked to this one. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 11:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't Category:Shades_of_color be expanding to include the template tables inline, or putting them together in a new page work also? PaleAqua 10:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Klein Blue

Is there any reason why International Klein Blue is listed as Klein Blue, not International...? IKB is the name I know the colour as, and first I went to the I section. --kylet 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the names of articles, so it should match whatever the article is. This page is probably out of step. Notinasnaid 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved it from K to I --kylet 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isolation?

I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, don't know much about this stuff, but how about links to see the color in isolation? For example, Prussian Blue appears much darker and almost green because it is surrounded by lighter colors. Jinnentonik 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of colors

It looks like there's been some disagreement here lately about which colors to include on the page. There is currently discussion on this topic at Wikiproject Color. Please join the discussion there and help us reach a consensus about how to handle this information, rather than continuously adding and removing colors, which seems to be hurting feelings more than helping the page. Thanks! -- Laura S | talk to me 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chocolate and cinnamon

I'm no colour expert, but this is hardly a technical point: surely chocolate and cinnamon have been accidentally switched in the list?

[edit] green & blue?

wheres blue-green?Cute 1 4 u 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean teal (color) or cyan? — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to include

(discussion moved from Gamma Corrected? section)

We need a clear and technically sound definition of EXACTLY what these colors are, in terms of what color model they are defined under.24.222.121.193 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. There's actually been some pretty lengthy discussion over at the Color Wikiproject on this and several related topics. One of the things we finally agreed on was exactly what you just said - that we need to provide proper and documented definitions for any colors we include on Wikipedia. Of course, once we agreed on it we didn't take much action that I know of (my fault as much as anyone). You should take a look, it's really interesting and maybe you'll want to get involved? -- Laura S | talk to me 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I can add any clarity here. This page is called "List of colors" but that isn't a good name. The article starts out by saying it is a list of articles about colors and it is that which I have taken as the definition for any work I've done on this page (for example, removing colors which get added that don't have articles). So, if this page has any color swatches or color values, it seems to be that it is simply a mirror of what each article has to say.

So, that moves the question: what color model is used to define the colors in each article. These seem to come under two headings: "sRGB" and "made up". We can say that sRGB is used for each of the colors defined with a name by W3C (see Web colors). That's a lot of them, and let's consider them first. If all of these colors are defined using sRGB, then this is a full definition of color model. Gamma 2.2 and other attributes.

The other ones are a problem, not just for this page, but for any claims Wikipedia has to accuracy; this is something the project is attempting to deal with. A proposed standard says that a color name only be given a value if a reputable standard defines it; implying that all other "made up" color values have to go.

Now, there will be many other articles about colors which have every encylopedic reason to exist (cultural, artistic, religious...). But in my view these remaining colors cannot have color values, since they would have to be made up (=original research), and so, while they would still be linked from this page there would be no swatch or color value here.

Hope this is some use. Notinasnaid 09:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm thinking we should move this discussion to a new heading since we're not really talking about gamma correction anymore. But to the topic at hand. For colors not in a defined color space, I think we should still definitely list them if they are notable in some way (tricky to determine though), and just leave out exact color values for those with no actual color space. I'm on the fence about swatches - I agree about the dangers of "making up" values for the swatch, but they can be extremely useful for illustrative purposes. If we did include a swatch we'd definitely need to provide a notice about non-exactness, etc. I wouldn't be heartbroken if we removed the swatch though.

Regarding lists and whether to include colors with no articles, how are other lists handled? I seem to recall seeing some lists with redlinks. For things like "List of books by author X", it makes sense to include everything, even those without articles. I'd rather see completeness. If we're only including colors with articles, it would make more sense to lose the list and just point to the Colors and Color stubs categories. I wouldn't mind at all having a list of all notable colors (again, very tricky to determine what belongs, but I'd be willing to take the challenge if others would as well) including those with no articles. Then we can work on creating any missing articles. Obviously we'd need to change the description text of this list. And yes, I would support removing color articles if they are truly non-notable or plain made up. I would really support merging color articles into families or other groupings where it makes sense. -- Laura S | talk to me 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found this Pokemon style guide which lays out guidelines for not only how to style a Pokemon-related article, but also what sorts of things to include. Articles not following the style guide get tagged with a template to mark them for cleanup. We should do something similar for colors, so that when these sorts of discussions come up, we have a solid any inevitably (and understandably) upset people to that page to explain the decision. We're already close with the Color Wikiproject, but formalizing some of these items might help. Thoughts? -- Laura S | talk to me 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what purpose this "List of Colors" is serving. The premise is preposterous. There are millions of colors and the ones that have been given a name are either broad categories or tied to specific physical processes (pigments, dyes, phosphors, etc...). The Pantone system is one such naming scheme that is strictly defined within the well-defined production ability of designated inks. So where do these colors, named here come from ? Who measured any of these colors to produce the implied spectra, let alone the questionable RGB values specified here ? If Wikipedia insists everywhere to quote the source, then quote the source ! Naïve readers will keep asking for a particular shade ("Add Russet, please, it's a shade of Red" - thank you; now that's helpful) but we're dealing here with a reference web site, not somebody's fancy. So, what is the source for all these colors ? What is "teal" or "safety orange" ? If there is an ANSI or ISO standard for "safety orange", than it must be printed here - it is likely that any such standard color will be specified as per its method of fabrication (which dye combination will yield the color, for instance), and where, in the CIE XYZ color model, the color falls. Now that would be a reference. What are the standards here ? The SMPTE/EBU color bars ? The Resistor Color Code ? The Pantone Matching System ? HTML4 Color Keywords ? X11/SVG Color Keywords ? There seems to be confusion as to the bounds of the color naming at play here - if we are strictly dealing with color names as defined and accepted within the W3C (from sources such as X11), and bound by computer display capabilities, then fine, there is no problem with reproduction of physical color appearances. But elsewhere in Wikipedia, we have RGB triplets supposedly relating to actual pigments such as Prussian Blue. One needs to draw a line.

I also read something odd in the "Color" page stating "The disadvantage of the systems, however, is the lack of an exact computational model of attaching a name to a given color sample." This is wholly incorrect. For a method of computing Munsell values, check out www.brucelindbloom.com (a good source of information in general).

Second, the gamma issue. Gamma is the transfer function of the Luminance in a display system. It has only a limited effect on hue and perception, depending on your definition of hue; but it has a more correllated effect on the perception of saturation. Still, newer models of color appearance, such as the CIECAM 02 imply more elaborate relationships between factors which were previously oversimplified as totally de-correllated. Most Wikipedia's user's computer displays will not be calibrated, so it is important to state clearly what the intended viewing conditions are for any color swatch to appear reasonably true to a common standard. The viewing conditions should be explicit as to the display RGB space, and its gamma function if that is not standardized as well. A gamma of 2.2 is by far the most practical, and the most widespread. It is the standard for television imaging, and the vast majority of computer displays - besides, it is the gamma standard that maintains the lowest average deviation from the human visual system's Lightness function, the L*. So a gamma of 2.2 is a good choice. I've read references to a gamma of 1.0 here and I find that puzzling - if that is meant to say that the display is left uncorrected, then the resultant gamma will be in the range of 2.5 for most displays. If it means that a gamma of 1 is set in the power function exponent, then good luck...

Third, the issue of gamut. Naturally-occuring colors - those for which, in general, there are names - very often fall totally outside of the reproduction capabilities of computer displays, and many pigments and dyes. Tell me how, then does one define in RGB, a pigment the perception of which, under a specific type of illumination, falls completely out of your average display's gamut ? People here seem to think that sRGB will define any colour. sRGB has a gamut which is closely derived from the television PAL/SECAM primaries. It has a pretty low gamut efficiency of 35% with respect to Lab, which means that it cannot account for 65% of all colors perceptible by humans. This is not a flaw in sRGB, it is simply that it was not designed for the purpose that is intended here; it was designed as a lowest-common working RGB space to connect computer displays to television images and printing inks. It is a compromise. So what about all these colors that fall outside of the sRGB gamut ? Assuming that care was used in deriving their RGB values from some properly measured full spectrum function, and that an ICC rendering intent was used, the values printed here will be wrong whether in terms of hue or saturation - this means that many colors which appear different in the physical world (again, under a certain type of illumination if they are reflective) will appear the same by the time their values are clamped to a tiny color space like sRGB. Simply stating that the "colors are right" but it all depends on the display gamma is extremely misleading. The specific hues of the red, green and blue chromaticities of a user's computer display will not guarantee that any color is correct, irrespective of the display gamma.

To summarise, I would say that what is needed here are a number of printed definitions in the page:

- Source of the information for each color. Are the values traceable to some NIST standard ?
- To what color naming scheme a color belongs to. This means that a color like "white" has a different meaning (totally absctract) than some physically realizable Pantone name/value. Some colors are conceptual, others designate physical samples.
- Intended display conditions: ICC profile for display (with gamma value), intended ambient illumination for viewing, and intended surround intensity for display. There are standards for this.
- Methodology used in converting from spectral data to RGB values.
- Inherent perceptual error induced by RGB gamut clipping, in Delta E units.
- Metamerism indications: example values and/or swatches under daylight, tungsten, fluorescent illumination.

Best, and world-renowned references for people interested in color science. Works by:

Bruce Lindbloom (work on gamut and color companding). 
Mark Fairchild (color appearance models). 
Roy Berns (many works, including color appearance, multi-spectral imaging, and evaluating the accurate color recording of museum artifacts). 
Charles Poynton (specialized in television and film imaging, great discussions of gamma). 
R.W.G. Hunt (many works on color measurement and reproducibility). 

A simple Google search on these persons' names will yield pointers to their books or their websites. 

Check out also the following URL for an indication of what accurate measurement is:

http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/color/facilities.html

Ppanzini 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As the first paragraph makes clear (but sadly not the title of the article), this is a list of articles about colors. It is a pity it contains so much original research, but this is just a large mirror of the faults of the other articles, rather than a fault in itself. This page, like the articles, should give the provenance of the name (i.e. which reliable source defined it thus), and shouldn't have these terrible made up CMYK values (unless, of course, the value is defined as CMYK, in which case the use of a swatch is highly questionable). There is an interesting discussion already going on, and people who know about color would be especially welcome: please see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Color. The process of improvements to meet any standards has been at a standstill for many months. Notinasnaid 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but all the values should then be striked out, not just the CMYK. There is not basis for the RGB or any other values, except when they come from X11 and HTML4. The color names adopted by W3C make no claim to be names connected to anything outside of computer displays - they are totally arbitrary. Even then, for what display ? A Trinitron CRT with P22 phosphor or a 5000$ EIZO display with native AdobeRGB chromaticities ? The only way to make X11 color names somewhat reproducible is to define for which color space. For the web, that obviously is sRGB at 2.2. I'm reluctant to start striking out things because it will seem more like amputation than laparoscopy... Some sort of consensus should be struck in the background before one makes sweeping changes here which will not be understood by the vast majority.Ppanzini 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should all be struck out except in particular situations. Unfortunately there are far more people enthusastically reporting, converting and coining any color they find or like the sound of than there are people cleaning up. The convenient thing about CSS colors is that their purpose is to be displayed in a browser; they aren't consistent but we can at least arrange that much. I would like a "health warning" against each swatch, however. If you think this is bad, just look at Green. Notinasnaid 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that what should be done is separate colors into categories - those colors which are for computer display only (W3C standards) should have the Hex and RGB values maintained, as well as the HSV/HLS. All the CMYK should be striked out - they are totally meaningless. Those color names which are not in any way connected with X11/HTML4, etc... should be put under a different section, and have all their color coordinates removed. An header text should explain, in a preventive measure why these colors do not have exact coordinates - ie they are subjectively designed by users. My definition of "Brass" is wholly different from another person's. A special category should be made for primary and conceptual colors (Red, Green, Blue, Black, etc...)

I have asked a colleague who's affiliated with the Munsell Color Science Lab, and he confirms to me that they are heavily frustrated with Wikipedia. Some students have been encouraged to update pages, but the whole Wikiality of users who have no clue tends to override. I'm afraid it's a case of pearls to swine, and somehow this is indicative of what's fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. I believe that the founders of this otherwise brilliant idea have gone public with accepting there are big problems with the methodology. The only way out, as far as I'm concerned, is to create a two-tiered system - certified experts to produce and moderate the core of articles, and a public sandbox for the rest of wikiality. Ppanzini 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page importance

Recently the page rating was changed from "high" to "top" with the comment "a list of colors is of top importance in a color project". Actually I disagree. I think the list of colors is a real problem, and certainly not important compared to properly explaining about colors. The idea that a list of colors is important seems to flow from the idea that the list can be definitive. However, proposed guidelines would remove most color values, because they are original research. Notinasnaid 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake. I changed it back. 24.126.199.129 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing colors

I went through the "Shades of..." template series for blue, violet, yellow, cyan, green, red, brown, and orange to check for colors that were missing from this page. Ecru (colour), Tangerine yellow, Baby blue, Myrtle (color), Falu red, Auburn (color), Liver (color), Mahogany (color), Seal brown, UNECE Amber, Cosmic latte, Magnolia (color) all were missing; the color coordinates for these colors are listed on their respective pages. Two other colors didn't have a color coordinate infobox, but there was the Hex code for their display on the (violet) template: Iris (color) = #5A4FCF; Palatinate (colour) = #742E68. Lastly, there was purpure, the heraldic equivalent of purple, which shouldn't even be listed on the (violet) template. 24.126.199.129 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend not using the RGB numbers from the Template:Shades of violet for Iris (color) or Palatinate (colour). Both are approximations, and at this point I'm fairly convinced that the colour for Palatinate is wrong. I think I may have been too bold. See Template_talk:Shades of violet for more details/discussion. PaleAqua 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I Grue (the Wanderer)?

I notice octarine, a fictional color. Anybody recall the Klingon name for ultraviolet-blue from The Final Reflection, or have a copy? Also, real colors, no mention of feldgrau? Trekphiler 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I think this page could use at least one link to a RGB HEX color chart. Im putting the best one (in my opinion) back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.144.101 (talk • contribs) .

This page isnt about RGB colors, it's a list of articles about color. That link might be appropriate at web colors, which I see it is already at. Problem solved :) --Quiddity 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mismatch with 'Dark slate gray' article

I accidentally noticed different color here w.r.t. the target article. Assumed that the target is correct. Is it? I'm too lazy now to search for an authoritative source. saimhe 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most articles are not sourced, and I suspect cannot be sourced without original research (like using a color meter). The best this article can do is reflect what the other article says: the article can and probably should be marked as unsourced. Wikipedia:WikiProject Color is trying to address this, but there seem an unlimited number of people ready to add new unsourced color information compared to those with the inclination to clean up! Notinasnaid 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of colors

re list of colors, there were people saying x,y,z colours have been missed, bear in mid pantone have 22,000 colouras listed, the human eye has 1.5million colours it can detect-colour blindness accepted. So sure russett green, scary flouros( safety orange etc), will be missed. The great thing is with the list it means that a nudge up, or down and you will get to the colour you're looking for.

You obviously do not know what XYZ color cordinates are, and I wonder where you got that figure fof 1.5 millions colors ? Based on Lab delta-e just-noticeable differences ? Under what conditions of surround and motion ? I also fail to see the connection with Pantone, which is an ink mixing standard. Please read "Billmeyer & Saltzman Principles of Color Technology", it's an introductory textbook on color science that might help you understand the topic.Ppanzini 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)