Talk:List of colors/Archive 3

As a "List of..." article (actually, articles), this list must have discrete, objective, sourced selection criteria. As it would be neither possible nor useful to list every color name ever used, the only common criteria that work here would be to list only those colors which have their own articles (i.e., non-redirect blue links). This would remove names created for Crayola, paint brands, etc.

I propose removing those "colors" which do not have their own articles. If there are colors that anyone feels should be included which do not have articles, write the article first.

Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Failing any discussion, I am a consensus of one. I'll start out slow to gauge resistance and possibly generate discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I have taken this as a given. Thanks for helping out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See the "Planned removals" section of the talk page archive 2 for more support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Arsenic
• Blackberry
• Black raspberry

--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Some pruning of this list is in progress. A list of items removed as a result of this pruning can be found at the sub page Talk:List of colors/Colors removed

The preceding section did not get a lot of discussion, but I see no objection to the assertion that this article ought to include (only) names of colors for which there is an existing article.

It has been my observation that this list often see some additions, some of which are outright vandalism, and others of which are well-intentioned but not useful additions if they add a color whose attributes cannot be verified.

I'd like to start a more formal approach to pruning this list.

As an experiment, I'm going to create tables of entries I think qualify for removal or need some other attention. I'll leave them in the table for some period of time (maybe a week), and order to give editors a chance to identify any reasons why the entry should not be removed. After enough time as elapsed, the entry will be removed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree mostly with the removals. The one general comment I would make is that I'm not sure I'd trust some of the sites referenced as good sources there has been a lot of cyclic reference problems with color dictionaries on the web being based on Wikipedia. The last time I recall this list getting cleaned that was found to be a big factor in a lot of the colors. The other thing we have to be careful of is just because a source for a color coordinate is found doesn't mean that it is "THE" coordinate. Coordinates are generally only valid in regards to some standard such as the CSS 3 colors. Because of the way the web works this has lead to an inflated importance to the X11 color list and it's descendants. While it's clear that color terms like red are more general then say #FF0000, the same is true of color terms like eggshell or brick red. I don't think we should be given coordinates at all unless we are talking about a specific standard. PaleAqua (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent observation. While I'm interested in colors, I'm far from an expert; the more I read the more I realize how complicated it is. As part of doing some research in connection with the proposed deletions I did uncover exactly what you talked about — a site being used as a reference was actually generated from an earlier version of this Wikipedia list.

While I anticipated that my review of the entries in the list would identify some problematic ones, I naïvely thought that most would be okay, and my review would challenge relatively small minority of the list. To my surprise, almost every single entry I've looked at has issues. I agree that we ought to address the issue you have discussed, but I'm currently thinking that might be step three in a three-part process. My first step would be removals of entries in the list if they don't have a supporting article. My second step would be removal of entries in the list if there is a supporting article but the supporting article is not referenced. In the third step would be addressing issues where there is a supporting article, and that article is referenced, but we have serious concerns about the references.

My current plan is to wait a week or so, carry out the removals of any of the items I've identified that are not challenged, see if that action awakes some knowledgeable editors who haven't yet contributed, and depending on the results of any conversations moving on to some form of the three-step process I just outlined.

Frankly, given the thousands of editors who have contributed to these lists, I've been surprised at how few have weighed in on my proposed removals. I thank you for weighing in and I hope some others will as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I am a major culprit. I have the other three list of colors pages on my watch list. Never having seen any of those talk pages edited and never tried visiting one of those talk pages, I never was redirected to this page. Until now when an editor just edited the Talk:List of colors: N–Z redirect page. Jim1138 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that virtually all company's, country's, and school's colors should not be in the table unless it/they are somehow ubiquitous. Which I suspect are few, if any. I have deleted most of those wholesale with no complaints. Colors should be sourced. I would support your propsal that colors should link to a page. I that page should probably specify the color with {{infobox color}} or equivalent. Such as shades of blue#Navy blue. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW: I am really not into colors, so my involvement would not be much more than RCP checks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was surprised how little discussion there is at this page and it may be that some editors add a color to this list after adding it to another article in more detail and watchlist the other article but not this talk page. I confess I'm slightly surprised how many of the colors don't meet what I consider to be basic requirements — a link to an article which has a reliable source for the name of the color and the color attributes. I expected to find quite a few problems but it's more like 80 to 90% rather than the 20 to 30% I might have guessed. I'm thinking about a slightly different approach, but I'm going to remove some of the ones in the list below that have been up for a week without any action just to see if that wakes some editors up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think many just enter their favorite color without any thought to reference. My wp:RCP is mostly removing just-added unsourced content. Resulting in a large number of irate customers. Maybe be BOLD and simply delete unsourced colors? Or, move the unsourced colors to a {{cot}}/{{cob}} section? I could extract the ones I have simply deleted.

It would be nice to have a tool that verifies that the color is linked and sourced. Going through them one-by-one, initially and periodically, would take dedication and more than a touch of insanity.

It appears that a number of colors are identical (for instance aqua, cyan, and electric cyan (no article or source...)) and have the same hex values. Another editor pointed this out. I wonder how many people copy a {{Colort/Color}} entry and do the minimum such as changing the RGB display values and maybe guessing at the rest. As Colort/Color will do the calculations, why not just have the RGB values in the tables and let Colort/Color do the conversion. That way errors are minimized.

Is there any policy on which colors? Should one be generated? Jim1138 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks for your thoughts. I've been working (off-line) on an alternative approach as my initial approach is turning out to be more unwieldy than I had hoped. I hadn't thought of moving the unsourced colors to another location, I like that idea. That template is new to me but it does explain some things. I'll follow up with additional thoughts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I notice that {{List of Colors lede}} was broken out of List of colors. The text appears to have been change from "color" to "colour" before being broken out. I propose to change the spelling to "color" per wp:ENGVAR. Spelling should be consistent with the title. It is transcluded in the three list of colors A-F, G-M, & N-Z. Opinions?

I was mildly concerned about the possibility that "colours" was in the initial article, but I just checked, and it started with the American spelling. We ought to be consistent (within an article) so I support the change.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I changed it back to "color" from "colour". The editor who changed it to "colour" changed everything even links to articles that had "color" in them generating quite a few redirects. There are a few links that sort of don't make sense such as "the sixteen named colors" which links to Indexed color but does not mention "sixteen named". If you wouldn't mind, would you please check the links on template:List of Colors lede? Everything seems to work, but the link might go out of context. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything seems fine, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The source for Absolute Zero: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/ccolor39.htm simply states that it is the same color as List of colors: A-F Blizzard Blue which links to List of Crayola crayon colors#Fluorescent crayons. That references http://www.crayoncollecting.com/index.htm which states nothing about Blizzard Blue. http://www.crayoncollecting.com/B-colors.htm defines Blizzard Blue as:

• "Blizzard Blue, Crayola, Blue, Also Bleu tourmente" not giving any sample
• The reference on List of Crayola crayon colors#Fluorescent crayons simply states: "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon"
  
• Also: many, if not all, of the colors Blizzard Blue and Absolute Zero don't match.

Is this wp:V? Or should all of those be removed? Jim1138 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Add comments here

This site does identify the color coordinate value #F2F0E6 with alabaster. However, subject to further investigation, that leaves us with the odd situation that the company who chose this color as color of the year assigns different attributes than other sources. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Add comments here

--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The final column should either simply identify the date that the entry has been removed from the list, or the date that proper support has been identified or created to justify retention in the list. That step should include a double check of the attributes, on the chance that location of a proper source or creation of an article has different attributes than currently listed in the table.

--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on some feedback from some other editors, I'm going to try a new approach. Rather than examine each individual entry and identify potential problems, I'm going to try a triage approach. Roughly speaking, I think there are three types of entries, the first of which can be removed after a brief review, The second of which will require a little more review and may may be retained supporting documentation can be found, and removed if it cannot be found. The third type will require some more in-depth review and a determination of what to do if there are supporting references for the name of the color but not for the color attributes. I will list three types in the sections below and then follow that with a first pass at identifying entries qualifying as type 1

Subtype 1a - Entry does not have a link to an associated page. (There aren't many of these because typically if an editor adds such an entry to the list, some other editor will notice it and remove it.)

Subtype 1b - Entry has a link to a Wikipedia article, but that while may be an article to a related subject, it does not contain a discussion of the color.

Add to a list. Add a note to the linked article mentioning the plan for removal. Let the list set for a few days on the chance that an editor will realize that there actually is an article talking about the color and the link was poorly chosen or nonexistent.

After waiting a few days, remove the entry.

The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article (or a section of an article) discussing the color. However, the discussion of color is not supported by reliable sources.

Note: the ideal linked article or section of article will contain reliable sources for both the name of the color itself as well as the associated attributes. We may have to discuss what action we would take if the name of the color is well supported but the attributes are not.

Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the discussion of the article and/or the attributes is not sourced. References should be tracked down and added in any event, but if that does not occur, the entry will be removed from this list. Editors can optionally take whatever action they feel appropriate at the linked article if no supporting references are supplied.

The entry in this list has a legitimate link to an article or section of an article in that article has sources supporting the existence of the name of the color as well as the attributes. However, the sources themselves are questionable and should be challenged regarding the status as a reliable source.

Add to a list. Add a post to the linked article talk page explaining that the References for the name of the color and/or the color attributes may not qualify as reliable sources. The editor leaving the post may also raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard will leave it to editors of that article to carry out that step. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are reliable no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable but alternative reliable sources are available, no action is necessary. If the consensus of editors is that the sources are not reliable and no alternative sources can be found, the entry should be removed from the list and optionally further action should be taken at the linked article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Carmine red - @Sphilbrick: this one seems a mistake, as the article, and the lede in particular, is devoted to a discussion of carmine red and its variations. This is a common artist's pigment. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mark viking: The list includes Carmine (#960018) which I am not proposing to remove. This entry is about Carmine red – a different name and a different hex code (#FF0038), not mentioned in the linked article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification--I understand and agree with your decision. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Celadon blue - @Sphilbrick: Celadon blue is a real color and shares the same hex triplet as Shades_of_cyan#Cerulean. I have added this fact and refs to that section. I suggest we change the link. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mark viking: Thanks, that's exactly the type of response I am looking for. I changed the link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Cornflower -- With added refs to verify, whatever we end up calling #93ccea should be linked to Cornflower_blue#Crayola. The color is called cornflower blue or light cornflower blue in the refs. Probably Cornflower blue (Crayola) or Light cornflower blue would be the best names to disambiguate from the #6495ED version. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to work on something else for some time, please ping me if I haven't followed up on this by tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I dropped a note on the talk page. I'm not quite sure what the next step should be.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Facebook Blue -- See my comments at Talk:Facebook#Possible_removal_from_list regarding Facebook Blue. The value given in this article is unsourced and not in line with other sourcing. This source gives Facebook Blue as RGB 59, 89, 152 but it isn't that simple, as the actual logo on the main page has a color gradient which varies it, getting lighter towards the top of the logo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds to me like support for removal, absent someone doing enough research to nail down good sourcing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Another obvious problem area is Barbie pink. This is currently sourced to a blog and a Google search, obviously failing WP:V. While there are some sources saying that Barbie pink is Pantone 219C, it needs to come from Mattel. In this source from Mattel, Barbie is wearing a dress which actually says "Pantone 219C" (click on the image to enlarge and read this).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research. Oddly, the text clearly states that the soles of her pumps are Pantone 219 C, not mentioning the main dress although it is clearly marked Pantone 219 C. Still, while this seems like solid evidence that the addresses Pantone 219 C I don't see anything on this page that suggests that this color is referred to as "Barbie pink". Perhaps it is but I think we need additional evidence. One interesting aspect to this particular incident is that it is not uncommon to find a reliable source supporting the name of the color but not the color attributes. Here we have the opposite situation, where we can reliably nail down the color attributes (once we look up the attributes for Pantone 219 C), but we don't yet have a reliable source for the name of the color.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Terra cotta (color) discusses terracotta, the color. Best to link there. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark viking, Good catch, {{done}} S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note: United Nations blue is officially set as Pantone 279, but as far as I can tell, there isn't a canonical mapping to a hexcode. I could add it to the Tufts Blue article, which is the same color, but I'm not confident of the mapping there either. So it is a real color, but I am unsure how best to add it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As an additional complication, that source doesn't make reference to "United Nations blue" but to "UN blue". I think that's a minor point, because I can find other places that make reference to the United Nations blue. Looking up Pantone 279 generates different values. This is a bit of a mess so I've temporarily moved this from the removal list I will try to address in my second pass (if I have the energy). I do want to thank you for weighing in — a been a little disappointed at how few editors have been involved so I want to make sure you appreciate those few that are trying to help out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to help in my small way. I've weighed in on relatively few because almost all of the deletion candidates look reasonable to me. I greatly appreciate all the work you are doing to clean up these lists, adding notices on relevant articles, and hunting down sources. No small task and you are making good progress. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The big issue is Pantone colors don't really map to RGB colors. Pantone colors for example are often defined based on the material they are printed on and the apparent color might change because of that. Consider   Pantone 279 C vs   Pantone 279 U. Similar problem to talking about crayola crayon coordinates as in the recent RfC that removed the coordinates here. A big part of the problem with this list is it makes assumptions about the ubiquitous of RGB coordinates for color terms and doesn't handle generic terms, subtractive colors, and colors outside the sRGB color space. I think notable color terms even without sRGB coordinates should be listed but it requires a redesign of how they are listed. PaleAqua (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My initial thought would be to make a similar change as done at History of Crayola crayons per this RfC and just include a sample color and the name of the article. If the color has coordinates they can be found at the article itself or for now could do the hex coordinates only. PaleAqua (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@PaleAqua: I will immediately concede that in terms of: knowledge of color, I'm a neophyte. I'm trying to learn, but when it comes to technical issues such as conversion between color spaces I'm not quite there yet. That hasn't been an impediment in my initiative so far — when I choose to remove a color from a list that is not discussed in a linked article (or may not even have a link to an article), I think I'm on solid ground. However, I've completed the first pass "low hanging fruit", and the next round may require some technical knowledge. I'm happy to learn.

For example, the official UN site makes reference to Pantone PMS 279.

Yet if I go to the Pantone site and search for 279, the response is: "We matched 6 colors to your query. Click on the color for more detailed information."

Which is followed by references to:

• Pantone 279 C
• Pantone 279 CP
• Pantone 279 U
• Pantone 279 UP
• Pantone 279 XGC
• Pantone PQ-279C

That leads to the obvious question. As someone claims that the official color is Pantone 279 do they mean one of the six colors or is it more complicated? If you click on the links to those six colors each one of them has a hex code:

• Pantone 279 C 418FDE
• Pantone 279 CP 5C8DC6
• Pantone 279 U 5B8EDB
• Pantone 279 UP 6690C1
• Pantone 279 XGC 638FCE
• Pantone PQ-279C 418FDE

None of which matches the hexcode used in the current list:

• #5B92E5

Any light you could shed would be most welcome.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I do know, for example, that the C refers to coded and the U refers to uncoated. My guess, but I'll emphasize that this is a guess, is it because coded paper and uncoated paper will act differently when color is added, slightly different formulations are required for those two types of paper with the intention, for example, that if you use 279 C on uncoated paper and 279 U on uncoated paper, the results will be as close to each other as possible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:It's more complicated. You can't really map a subtractive color to an additive color. I would suggest reading the RfC I linked as it described a lot of the issues with trying to map colors to RGB coordinates, granted it is mostly focus on crayons but the problem is universal. I think the Han Solo quote about the Kessel Run there is one of the best examples. To map to an RGB color coordinate requires a lot of device and environment specific information. This is one of the reasons Pantone has coordinates for different medias ( coated, uncoated, etc.). But it also includes the lighting environment etc. Giving many of these color terms coordinates is fundamentally OR and incorrect. PaleAqua (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd also recommend checking out the Pantone#Intellectual property and [1]. This is a problem if we try to include pantone color coordinates on this list. PaleAqua (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleAqua, for weighing in. I agree fully with all your points about inexact mappings and context dependent effects with respect to colorimetry and color coding. The pantone article itself, in the color of the year section, includes color swatches and approximate hex codes. The lesson I derive from this and the Crayola RFC is that we can use an approximate hex code representation for a color if that hex code can be reliably sourced. ColorHexa says #5b92e5 as does Encycolorpedia. Are these reliable enough sources to assign an approximate mapping for UN Blue? Also, like it or not, we already have a digital (and implied hexcode) representation of this blue color in the article Flag_of_the_United_Nations. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure we can consider either to be reliable sources both seem to be the type that have potential cyclic dependencies. There is no information at colorhexa about their editorial policy or how the came up with the mappings of coordinates to names. See #ebc2af seems to indicate that at least some of the names are likely based on an older version of Wikipedia's list of colors. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)