Talk:Color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 / v0.5 / Core (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Incorrect Information About Color Perception In Non-Humans[edit]

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[1]:

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[2]. 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

  1. ^ Thoen, H. H.; How, M. J.; Chiou, T.-H.; Marshall, J. (23 January 2014). "A Different Form of Color Vision in Mantis Shrimp". Science. 343 (6169): 411–413. doi:10.1126/science.1245824. 
  2. ^ Skorupski, Peter; Döring, Thomas F.; Chittka, Lars (27 February 2007). "Photoreceptor spectral sensitivity in island and mainland populations of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris". Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 193 (5): 485–494. doi:10.1007/s00359-006-0206-6. 

Misleading info[edit]

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 ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On what basis "color" is preferred over "colour"?[edit]

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% of Native English speakers spell it "color". John Alan ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)