From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Wrong translation of the Islamic verse[edit]

Can someone change the part for Islam? the correct way to interpret that surah would be "blind eyed" not blue eyed. its not to denote "fear" but to denote blindness, the sentence should be taken out since the reference to the surah is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:03, 28 December 2009

I capitalized "Islamic" and "Islam". --FeralOink (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Uh, this article has both spellings of the word "color", almost right above each other. AND I QUOTE, with British spellings in italic, and American in bold:

"The English language commonly uses "blue" to refer to any colour from navy blue to cyan. The complementary colour of blue in color science is yellow (on the HSV color wheel), while in art the complementary color to blue is considered to be orange (based on the Munsell color wheel)."

Could someone fix this? (Preferably with spellings commonly accepted on both sides of the Atlantic, if possible...) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a spelling that pleases everyone, but the rule for an article like this is to keep the kind of spelling which was first used (where it was possible to tell), and to treat every change between "US" and "UK" spelling after that as mischief, and every new text that uses the "wrong" one as something to be corrected. Looking over the history, it has gone through phases.
So...the very first entry is here. It uses colour, which is what the article mostly uses today.
I've begun correcting it, but it's a laborious process, since each link needs to be carefully kept working, and some things (e.g. quotes, names of organisations) are not to be changed. After a while I lost the will to live, but I've done a bit. Notinasnaid 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an overwhelmingly American used site. Use American English, not that British junk. It is "color," not COLOUR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; a most insightful comment you've graced us with...-- (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
There should really be a British English wikipedia to prevent this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I Despise British Writing[edit]

People spell Color wrong! Color!!! How do people spell it wrong!!!!! It's color! How simple!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

"British Writing"? Don't you mean spelling, rahter than writing?-- (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia accepts both spellings. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the English would probably insist that we're using the wrong spellings.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The English were around first. The language is named after them. It's their language, and therefore colour should be the correct spelling. Amenojin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. Colour, Color, who cares? They are the same word, and everyone knows that they are interchangable. No use fueling a pointless flame. DaRkAgE7 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither British English nor American English was here first. They both evolved from a common earlier form of the language, splitting off when colonists in American began to diverge culturally. British English is not necessarily even closer to the earlier form; in many cases American English remained unchanged where British English changed. Not to feed the trolls, but to point out another reason this is stupid thing to argue about. --Ericjs (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Random question, but is it impossible for some American to read a British spelling or vice versa? It really doesn't mater how its spelled, It means the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navi555 (talkcontribs) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree (and WP:ENGVAR backs us both up on that), although I do find it mildly annoying when the spellings switch between the two varieties in the same article. If it starts out in one form then I'm in full agreement that is should stay in that form. Just to point out that although I'm British and speak (and write) in British English, I do like a lot of American English spellings (color and flavor, for example) and wish we could follow the same path-- (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The wikipedia article for color is color. Colour redirects to color. Shouldn't it correctly link to color? --Thevdude (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical maps[edit]

I would like it to be mentioned that on American/Western warfare maps the blue and red arrows usually represent good and bad guys respectively. — Hellerick (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source that says so, feel free to add that fact to the article. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what kind of source do you expect. A manual for map-drawers or something? Or just bunch of maps where it's done this way? I have maps where:
  • (The Spanish Armada) English fleet is blue; Spanish fleet is red
  • (American revolution) Colonial troops are blue; British troops are red.
  • (American civil war) Union forces are blue; Confederate forces are red.
  • (Franco-Prussian war) French forces are blue; Prussians are red.
  • (World War I, several maps) Allied forces, French, Italians are blue; Central Powers, German forces are red.
  • (World War II, several maps) Allied forces are blue; Axis forces, Japanese are red.
  • (Korean War) UN forces are blue; Communist forces are red.
Americans use blue for themselves, their ancestors, and their allies. I understand that it looks too much like original research, but still I believe it should be added. After all, this is important information: color use on maps may imply POV, and should be avoided when necessary.
We here in Russia have different color scheme: reds are good, blacks and blues are bad, mauves are half-good (like western allies in WWII), greens are the third side. Just looking on the map you could guess who's side of the conflict was supported by official Soviet historians; the rule worked for all the epochs including the Ancient World, and the Middle Ages. — Hellerick (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you infer it from a bunch of maps drawn that way, it's called original research (see WP:OR); we need a WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This should be added. See blue on blue for example. Note that anonymous opposing forces are often orange to discourage an assumption that exercises are directed at a particular country associated with red, such as "red" China or the USSR. Laguna CA (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue [Da Ba Dee][edit]

Should this song be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


I'm not able to edit this semi-protected article, so could someone please move the following line out of the Politics section to somewhere more relevant and amend the spelling to the BE version: "Blue is also the color of a subway line in Boston that connects Downtown Boston with East Boston and Revere." Or it could be deleted entirely as I'm not sure exactly where else in the piece it should go! --Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed as it's nothing to do with politics.--hydeblake (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sky and water are often blue[edit]

Image of a pier extending out in to a lake, with a clear sky above and mountains in the distance.
The sky and water are often blue.

I wrote this on Sroc's talk page, but I'll add it here in case anyone else has thoughts on this one way or the other:

I had changed the caption to say that water and the sky are often blue, rather than appear blue (which Sroc has just changed back).

Here's why I'm changing it back to say "are" again:

  • according to most of what I've read on the colour of water, water is actually blue. A different mechanism to the usual, but blue nevertheless.
  • the sky appears blue most of the time (not sunsets or sunrises so much) because it bounces the 'blue' wavelengths sideways. But just because the colour is caused by the selective redirecting of some wavelengths, rather than by absorption or emission it doesn't mean it's not just as real. When something appears a colour it "is" that colour. Colour is only in appearance, and yet in normal parlance we say "the light is green", "the cup is red". As in the question "why is the sky blue?" So in my opinion we should keep it simple. --Annielogue (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more Than Feelings[edit]

Jhn parkinson created the colour blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Blue (color) / See Peach (color). On the Article page, the upper right quadrant color is known as aqua: it it not blue. We should really talk about these things, especially changing the Blue color to a {Blue (color)} article since the main disambiguation to the word Blue means somberly. This goes for Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Purple, Brown, Black, ad White as well. This is already true for the color Peach. (As we all know, there are only ten colors) In reference, in doing so, the search word generation for such diminutives would increase as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talkcontribs) 12:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) --#+3B 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 September 2011[edit]

Add Québec to nation/state with blue and white flags (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I read this it is just showing the Nations with blue/white flags which Quebec is not one of. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


The Quran is being seriously misquoted, the word Zurq, does not refer to the color of the eyes in any racial manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:16, 9 October 2011


The Quran is being seriously misquoted, the word Zurq, does not refer to the color of the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:22, 9 October 2011


When is blue associated with capitalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011[edit]

I was hoping you could add Poseidon Blue as one of the shades of blue please. I have 4 children, each named after a shade of blue, the older three are included on your page but my youngest is not; Poseidon. It took us a long time to find his name, having three already of the blue theme we could not have one who was not. I would greatly appreciate it if you could add it, and it would mean the world to my kids. Thank you for your time. Reference Page: Also in the Exterior Colours section: S311pollux (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Where would this go? There is no section for "lists of commercially named shades of blue". I think you've named your son after a piece of marketing rather than an actual color. — Bility (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revisions ot America-centric sport section[edit]

I have revised the America-centric Sport section. Please can an admin read it and remove the tag if necessary Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012[edit]

_hick 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No request--Jac16888 Talk 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish culture[edit]

Add to the Judaism section that the Israeli flag was chosen to be (white and) blue because of the tzitzit/tekhelet. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake - Association football[edit]

  1. In the first line of the Association football section, there is "A notbale exception".
  2. The second paragraph has "include six-times winners Boca Juniors". The plural should (and is) on winners, so it should be "six-time winners".

Could someone please correct these? Thanks - (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. - SchroCat (^@) 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a little consistency too much to ask for?[edit]

The correct form for using spelling variations (British English versus American English and so on...) is to use the form first that is spoken by the majority of people using the site. Variations on the spelling are then listed afterwards, with citations indicating the cultural origin. Regardless of whichever spelling is chosen, Wikipedia needs to adopt a specific policy of formatting that keeps it the same throughout every entry. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to put into practice. (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please either add new comments at the end, or append them to existing discussion on the same topic: don't start a new section near the top.
Wikipedia has a policy WP:ENGVAR, which says to use either form first unless the article is particularly associated with one part of the English-speaking world, and to use the same spelling thereafter in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has adopted a specific policy that is all about consistency within an article and is not difficult to put in practice. WP:ENGVAR. See ColinFine's description above. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive bloat[edit]

This big article has more than doubled in size in the last few days, without any discussion, until the attention of one editor and only a little review and pushback. Are we sure that massive amount of new stuff is helpful to the article? Is the new lead better than the old? Is all this history and stuff germane? I don't have time to review it much. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look, but it looks like good stuff to me, except that it is somewhat underreferenced and I wonder therefore if some of it might be original research or synthesis. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wave painting[edit]

A famous print, The Great Wave off Kanagawa, by Hokusai is used as an illustration, but the caption refers to Hiroshige. I've no idea about the claims made regarding use of Prussian blue in Japan, and I have no access to the French reference given in the article text. William Avery (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


When reading this article, I noticed that the lead seems a bit different from what seems to be the standard with leads for color articles. Contrast, for example, Blue is the colour of the clear sky and the deep sea and Yellow is the color evoked by light that stimulates both the L and M (long and medium wavelength) cone cells of the retina about equally, with no significant stimulation of the S (short-wavelength) cone cells. I have absolutely no problem with the current lead, but am just wondering if there is some sort of standard that this lead should adhere to. dci | TALK 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "blaues Auge"[edit]

"In German, to give someone a blue eye (blaues auge) is to look at them with anger or hostility." As a native speaker of German, I have never heard of this usage. The term "blaues Auge" is what we call a "black eye", and if you give (or "verpasst") someone a "blaues Auge", you hit em in a way that causes a black eye. The other meanings (to be "blau" = to be drunk; "blauäugig" (blue-eyed) = naïve) are correct though. Unless someone else gives an example of this usage (maybe it really exists in some dialect), this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo in "Blue Suit"[edit]

After "George Washington," should be "whose" rather than "who." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reatlas (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wavelengths and "The optics of blue"[edit]

There are errors in the description of our perception of blue. The article states, "The blues with a higher wavelength gradually look more violet, while those with a lower wavelength gradually appear more green." This is both inaccurate and a poor way of describing it. Wavelengths are not "high" or "low." Wavelengths are lengths, so they are "long" or "short."

The article should read: Shorter wavelengths of blue appear slightly violet; longer wavelengths of blue appear slightly green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reatlas (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor problem: The German government outlawed the use of indigo in 1577??[edit]

There was no German government in 1577, because Germany didn't exist (as a country). Although a source has been cited directly, the source contains wrong information. The section on institutions in the article about the Holy Roman Empire reads as follows: The Holy Roman Empire was not a highly centralized state like most countries today. Instead, it was divided into dozens—eventually hundreds—of individual entities governed by kings, dukes, counts, bishops, abbots and other rulers, collectively known as princes. There were also some areas ruled directly by the Emperor. At no time could the Emperor simply issue decrees and govern autonomously over the Empire. His power was severely restricted by the various local leaders. Conclusion: The source probably refers to the Holy Roman Empire, wich had no government, but an Emperor. Even the Emperor couldn't "outlaw" the use of indigo, because of the decentralised nature of the Empire and refering to him as the "German government" is also highly questionable. I'd appreciate it being fixed or removed.Johnny2323 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the same reason[edit]

The article correctly explains why the sky is blue:

When sunlight passes through the atmosphere, the blue wavelengths are scattered more widely by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, and more blue comes to our eyes.

But then it goes on to say:

The sea is seen as blue for largely the same reason: the water absorbs the longer wavelengths of red and reflects and scatters the blue, which comes to the eye of the viewer.

This is not the same reason: it is a different reason. The atmosphere is not blue; that is, it does not absorb red light. We see the sky as blue only because of the preferential scattering of blue light. The sea, on the other hand, is blue because—even though the color isn't strong enough to see in a small sample like a drinking glass or bathtub—water is blue.

Please correct this misleading wording and link to the "color of water" article, as I just did here. -- (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong party color and inconsistent naming[edit]

The article also says:

In Québec Province of Canada, the Blues are those who support sovereignty for Quebec, as opposed to the Federalists. It is the colour of the Parti québécois and the Parti libéral du Québec.

First, if you're going to name Quebec in French (Québec), you should do it consistently within the sentence.

Second, "Quebec Province" is not standard usage; it should be "the Canadian province of Quebec" or "the province of Quebec, Canada," or simply "Quebec, Canada,". Or Québec if you like, but in any case, With links, please.

Third, "sovereignty for Quebec" should also be a link, linking to Quebec sovereignty movement, and political parties should also be linked.

Fourth and most important, the Quebec Liberal Party should not be mentioned here. It's the principal party opposing sovereignty for Quebec, and according to their linked article, the party's color is red.

-- (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Prussian blue[edit]

The link to Prussian blue currently goes to the chemical, not the color. Is there no article on the color?? KDS4444Talk 08:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

typo -- preposition... first sentence.[edit]

not [on] the spectrum, but [in] the spectrum.

How big should the lead section be and what should be in it?[edit]

Closing per WP:AN request. Consensus is that a longer lead of 3 to 4 paragraphs is preferable. There are various suggestions in the discussion about what should be in it.  Sandstein  10:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Two of us have a difference of opinion on the size and contents of the lead of this article. SiefkinDR thinks a shorter lead like this, while I have an idea more like this. Can folks please comment on their preferred length, with some notes on what else they might like in the lead, or what else can be removed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadly support longer version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)[edit]

  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (obviously)
  2. Support Lead should be three or four paragraphs ideally. But not more. 4 sentences is not sufficient for most topics. It should provide a decent stand alone summary. Something that if translated into another language would be decently useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per WP:LEADLENGTH, for an article beyond 30K in length, a longer lead length of three to four paragraphs is appropriate. This article is 111K in length. Neither lead adequately summarizes the article, but this is a challenge in such a wide ranging subject. --Mark viking (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support also this was discussed semi-recently at the talk page of several of the other color articles, so I'm sort of surprised to see the short versions there again as I thought concensus went the other direction. PaleAqua (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I think the longer version should be rewritten as per the comments in the Discussion section below. There's just not enough room in a 'short' lead to represent such a large topic.  DiscantX 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support. The short lead is too short. I agree with Mark Viking that WP:LEADLENGTH is an issue here. You just can't summarize the entirety of a decent article in so few words. The discussion comments do seem to have some useful input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Historically the precedent has been for Wikipedia articles to have about 4 paragraphs in the lede. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lede_Improvement_Team#Ledes_of_medical_articles I give an example of how people in WikiProject Medicine use ledes. In my opinion, the lede should be a summary replacement for the entire article, and contain enough information to allow a person to engage in a conversation on the subject as the article presents it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadly support shorter version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)[edit]

Thanks for opening this discussion. I support the shorter version, for these reasons:

The format of the short version is currently used in most color articles, including red, yellow, white, black, gray, orange, brown, and violet. I think that this article should follow the same format as the other color articles.

Following this common format, the first sentence gives-the chief characteristics and most common occurrences, per the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources; "Blue is the colour of the deep sea and the clear sky". The second sentence or short paragraph describes the optical qualities; wavelength, place in different color systems) and the third paragraph gives the most important cultural and historical associations.

I have some real problems with the current version. The sentence on etymology in the lead here is longer than the etymology section below in the article, and gives an entirely different explanation than the section in the article. I think the etymology doesn't really need to be in the lead at all, It is not in the lead of most color articles.

It's not necessary to use space in the lead to explain what complementary colors are. A link is enough.

I also don't believe its necessary to go into the different variations and shades of blue in the lead. No other color article does that. There's a whole section on this in the article, and there are individual articles on all the variations; no need to repeat all of this in the lead of the article on blue. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Discuss away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither, although the lead should be at least as long as the longer version. The lead should attempt to convey the whole range of information that will be found if you read further. So, it should include some mention of:
    • Linguistics and etymology
    • Physics & occurrence in nature
    • Dyes & pigments
    • Artistic use across cultures and time
    • Cultural meanings across cultures and time
Agree with the "shorter lead" proponent that there's no room here for reproducing any of the detail from any section: Noyster (talk), 13:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I cobbled it together late in the evening, so figure it can do with a bit of addition and subtraction of content. Mainly wanted to get a consensus on size to avoid more edit warring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Noyster, the lead should contain a summary of the major points mentioned in the rest of the article. There's probably not enough room for every section to be represented, but the topics he mentioned are probably good. Doing this will probably bring the lead up to at least the same length as the longer version.  DiscantX 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that several editors have asked for a longer lead; I have added one new paragraph summarizing blue in art and history, and am working on another to summarize blue in nature. There will be more to follow. As several editors have noted, there probably isn't space to summarize all the sections of the article, since it covers such a wide range of subjects, and many of the sections are quite short; a summary would be as long as the section itself; but the main points can be included. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a few differences in the text that also need to be resolved; the lead currently gives a different wavelength of blue than the info box and the section on optics in the article, and the etymology of blue is explained differently in the lead than it is in the article. I think these can be fixed without much trouble.

I agree with ditching the shades and agree there is no need for oppposite colours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 February 2015 (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 28 March 2015[edit]

Under the history heading in the article on blue, one of the photos is incorrectly labeled.

A lapis azuli bowl from Iran (End of 3rd, beginning 2nd millennium BC)

The word "azuli" in the above text should be changed to "lazuli" Ingsoc225 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)