Talk:List of RAL colours

Section sizes

Section size for List of RAL colours (15 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	485	485
RAL Classic	16	67,498
Yellow and beige	4,126	4,126
Orange	2,410	2,410
Red	2,761	2,761
Violet	1,293	1,293
Blue	3,031	3,031
Green	5,027	5,027
Grey	3,735	3,735
Brown	2,216	2,216
White and black	1,731	1,731
Overview	41,152	41,152
RAL Effect	30,484	30,484
RAL Design System+	224,870	224,870
References	160	160
Total	323,497	323,497

Historic deletion request

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

"I fail to see what purpose it serves." - is not a reason for deletion. HSRtrack (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had quoted the full reason for the prod you could note that lack of WP:notability is a reason for deletion. Note that your disagreeing with it does not make it vandalism. noq (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look in the policy you could find that "I fail to see what purpose it serves." is not listed as a valid reason for deletion. Stop the vandal or test edits and read and learn WP policies. HSRtrack (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as repeated stated, the reason for deletion is a lack of notability - you have not addressed that. And please read assume good faith and don't shout vandalism every time you disagree with other peoples edits. noq (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the L*a*b* (CIELAB) colours be checked against the RAL standard, and/or where did they come from? With what observer and what light source were they taken? There seems to be no consensus on the web which L*a*b* colour belongs to which RAL colour, although the webshop of RAL sells an application that allows to convert to L*a*b*. CIELAB appears to be a good choise if a list is made, because it is an absolute colometric measure, if the whitepoint is specified (as far as I read). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:89F9:1:BC62:35C:33E9:8DAF (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CIELAB colors listed here do not match other sources on the web, raising the question of where they were sourced. Hopefully not mathematically derived from RGB values! As this article only exists to provide colorimetric data, it is important to make sure the data provided is absolutely correct. Otherwise, it serves no useful purpose and may cause harm (wasting the time of those who consult it and use it in projects) and should be deleted. Paul Coddington (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily changing RAL colo(u)r names

I note that as of 28/3/2016, RAL 1021 is described as "Rapeseed yellow". This is not the correct colour description, the correct description is "rape yellow". The table on this page is copied from the standard, as referenced, and thus must agree with the standard, even though some people do not like it. In particular, the story thast hit the UK recently, [Aldi makes U-turn on shade of paint called 'rape yellow' after complaints] does not change what the standard calles this shade, even though some retailer has decided to relabel their cans of paint.

Color names in german

Is there any reason why all the examples are German? Seems a little unbalanced considering how widely used the system is. ProfDEH (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company behind RAL is located in Germany and the RAL-Design-System is their product: de:RAL-Design-System, de:RAL gemeinnützige GmbH, de:RAL Deutsches Institut für Gütesicherung und Kennzeichnung --Angerdan (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAL RGB values

The tool tip RGB colour code might not match the standard. For instance, RAL 9010 states #F7F9EF while page source uses #F1ECE1. Did I grab the wrong standard? Is the 24bit hex RGB encoding not accurate enough? Anyway, there's little consensus on the web about RAL 9010 as some sites even state #FFFFFF. Hummeling (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Your're right, the tool tip Hex codes as well as the visible colors differ from the correct RAL ones. In the german disc archive about the RAL color list there have been mentioned possible legal issues.

For booth topics take a look at the dewiki disk archive: de:Diskussion:RAL-Farbe/Archiv

A site describing "pure white" as #FFFFFF sounds more like an assumption than a reference to the RAL colour chart, because thats what "pure white" usually means. FWIW I have seen fairly good agreement between colour values on different sites (www.ral-farben.de/en/all-ral-colours vs encycolorpedia.com vs ralcolorchart.com (no relation)). Is it possible that somebody has taken the Lab colour values and translated them to RGB instead of sRGB? 82.18.16.235 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAL 9910 "hipca white"

If you google this you'll find lots of products. What's the deal with it? I can't find it on RAL's site. 86.127.104.145 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not included in the RAL color system. So it's just a product from one company labeled with a name which doesn't belong to the official RAL colors. --Angerdan (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page errors

This article is currently showing errors, see "Node-count limit exceeded" at the bottom and the broken {{rgb}} templates in the last table. I think that is due to recent edits at Template:Coltit. @Crissov: Would you please check what is going on? Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure it out. I messed something up yesterday in {{coltit}}, but I thought I feixed it in the end. — Christoph Päper 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem too.--𝒞𝒽ℯℯ𝓈ℯ𝒹ℴℊ (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Node count exceeded

@Crissov: Some problems are showing in the article since you edited {{coltit}} and added the List of RAL colors#RAL Design System+ section. The article is in the hidden Category:Pages where node count is exceeded and is showing junk like rgb=249,234,235}} at the bottom. Copying the entire table from the RAL Design System+ section to a sandbox and previewing shows no errors. My guess is that coltit is adding too much overhead given the large list of entries in this article. Any thoughts on how it could be fixed? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it with a bit of a kludge using a much-simplified emulation of the template. The errors can be seen in the revision prior to my edit which was permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I don't know how to fix this. — Christoph Päper 14:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]