Talk:Green

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Green has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is supported by the Color WikiProject, 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Wrad (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Topics from 2003

[edit] Uncategorized comments

I've removed "However, this is ironic because the only symbol Muhammad chose for his new religion was a black flag[citation needed]." It seems to be a subtly negative statement and does not have a citation and I cannot find any more information on this online.

--- hey, this reads very nicely.

An important fact that isn't here yet:

Green is the name for the broadest spectrum of colors that human vision can see... apparently an evolutionary adaptation to distinguish many shades of it for purposes of grazing and getting around in a forest or grassland.

This might account for its wide iconic significance in human cultures, especially in desert regions (Islam), but that's just speculation. The factual part is that humans can distinguish more shades of green than any other color with one name...

e.g. sea birds might have similar capacities to distinguish blue, and you might expect seagulls then to adopt blue as their basis of unity.

Isn't also green the symbolic colour of hope ?
And in French it is the name of the area of the golf course where the hole is, but I have no idea if this is the same in English ?
I won't add them since I'm not sure if they are suitable for the English Wikipedia → SeeSchloß 20:58, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2004

moved from article:

(?????????????Please could someone verify/elaborate this - as a Chinese myself, I am puzzled by this text, because there is definitely a single word for "green" see http://www.okdaily.com/cgi-bin/ecdict.cgi?english=green . We use it all the time to describe the colour of trees, leaves, etc. Also, qing refers to the colour "light green"/"lime green", see http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=46237&dict=CALD , or describes metaphorically something that is young, or if someone looks ill hence the colour, and a few more other uses. However never in my whole life have I used it to refer to the colour "blue". There is a separate word for "blue", see http://www.okdaily.com/cgi-bin/ecdict.cgi?english=blue . The colour between blue and green, we called it "blue green", "sea green", or if it has a bluey tinge "sea blue". As for the colour "black", there is a single word for that, too, see http://www.okdaily.com/cgi-bin/ecdict.cgi?english=black . Note that, there is a separate word for "colour", hence, if we can also say "green colour" or "black colour" to make it clear that it is the colour we are refering to, hence the two words shown in those links to www.okdaily.com, the first word is the actually colour, the second word is the word "colour".)

Isn't the word "midori" used for green in Japanese? Wiwaxia 23:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Toki Pona language

I apologize for hasty editing, having said in my summary "... language so seldom spoken that we don't have even an estimate of speakers in our article on it". In fact there is an estimate, and i missed it.

The estimate is 10 to 20. Speakers, not thousands of speakers.

Please direct comments on my complete removal of the link from Green to Talk:Toki Pona language rather than here, as i will be looking for other absurd links to Toki Pona language, and any challenges to the deletions that result should be discussed together. --Jerzy 23:17, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

I have changed the page because I am 11 years old!--66.110.197.20 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)2 + 2

[edit] RGB coordinates for Green

See the message in the talk about red titled "RGB coordinates for Red", the paragraph about replacing red-words with green-words.

I've added a reference to George Green's page (mathematics, Green's theorem) and, because of the lack of clarity between the people linked, I've added brief information on the supposed character. Hope this helps.

[edit] Green and blue in Japanese

I suggest to erase Japanese from the sentence "The English language makes a distinction between blue and green, but some languages, such as Japanese, Vietnamese, and Tarahumara, don't have a separate words for green and refer to that color using either a word that also can refer to yellow, or one than includes blue."

I don't know about Tarahumara, but this seems correct, as long as I know, for Vietnamese (actually Vietnamese does have words to distinguish between green and blue, but they are not currently used in ordinary language). But Japanese certainly has a word for green (midori みどり,　緑) as opposed to blue　(ao あお,　青), and everybody use both words to refer to green and blue objects respectively. It is true that Japanese did not make such a distinction commonly in the past, and some specific "green" things are still referred as "ao". The most common of them is that a green streetlight is referred as "ao". But a the color of a green sweater, the color of trees, the color a green plate or cup etc. will not be refered as "ao", but as "midori" nowadays.
--Milaiklainim 13:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Complement: Magenta or Red??

I just heard the quote "The complement is either magenta or red, depending on your color space". Why are the 2 "color spaces" different?? 66.32.241.40 02:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO, compliment color doesn't depends from color space. Kenny 10:13, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

That quote sounds like my edit summary. I admit that "colour space" was the wrong phrase. What I should have said, and what I did try to say in the article itself, was that it depends on whether you are using the additive light primary colours red, green and blue, or the subtractive paint primary colours red, blue and yellow. I think the problem is that physicists use the standard primary colours (I believe they were defined by the CIE, based on the optimal tristimulus values for human vision) which are RGB for light (as in colour video), or CMY for pigments (as in colour printing), whereas artists use the traditional, non-optimal paint primary colours red, blue and yellow. Perhaps if the art world were to re-establish itself on physical principles, painters would switch to using the printers' CMY pigments, but I suppose there are practical reasons why artists choose different pigments. -- Heron 15:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This must mean that R/Y/B are based on tradition and M/Y/C are based on logic. I know several things that differ from each other with one being based on tradition and the other on logic, including:

  • Tradition: The earth is 6,000 years old.
  • Logic: The earth is 4.6 billion years old.
  • Tradition: The earth is the center of the solar system and is perfectly flat. Seven bodies, including the sun and the moon, revolve around it.
  • Logic: The earth revolves around the sun and is one of 9 planets. The moon is the only body that revolves around the earth.
  • Tradition: Everything is made out of only 4 elements: earth, air, water, and fire.
  • Logic: There are more than 100 elements, including hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, etc.

True or false: this is another example of tradition/logic:

Tradition: the primary colors are red/yellow/blue. Logic: the primary colors are magenta/yellow/cyan.

66.245.78.144 17:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit harsh on the RBY tradition, 66. It is not in the same category as the other examples you listed. Your examples of mediæval thought have all been abandoned because there is no practical benefit in retaining them. The RBY scheme, on the other hand, does have a practical benefit: red, blue and yellow are easily available pigments, whereas cyan and magenta are not. I quote: "Some artists have expressed the opinion that suitable pigments for the subtractive magenta and cyan primaries still fall short of workable pure hues. " [1].
Next, m'lud, I quote the Chambers Dictionary, which first defines 'primary colours' in the accurate sense that we all accept, then says "or (in general use) red, yellow and blue".
I agree that we should state that the true primary colours are RGB, but I still think we should mention RYB, because they are still used. What should we call them? "The traditional primary colours", or "the colours that people used to call primary and still sometimes use as such even though they know they're not"? Somehow, the word primary always finds its way in there. What would you call them? -- Heron 19:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.S. This short article is also a good read. It says that cyan and magenta paint are available, and that the RYB tradition is on the way out. So perhaps your view will eventually find its way into the dictionaries.

Well, what year was it first revealed that M/Y/C (as opposed to R/Y/B) is the true set of primary colors?? 66.245.7.55 21:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It must have been after 1860, when James Clerk Maxwell discovered that the additive primaries were RGB and not RYB, and before Aemilius Müller published his CMY subtractive colour theory in 1951. I base this reasoning on an excellent web site, http://www.colorsystem.com/, that describes the history of colour systems in huge detail. There is a full discussion of just about every colour system ever devised from Ancient Greece to the present, with nice pictures. The path to the understanding of subtractive colour mixing was a long and interesting one, but Müller is the first person I can find who used the names "cyan, magenta and yellow" for his subtractive primaries. I'm open to offers of an earlier inventor than Müller. -- Heron 09:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Green rubles

I added

This is illustrated by a joke told in the days of the Soviet Union: "Name something green, other than money", with the correct answer being "A ruble".

in spite of having only one source, and that oral (an American who was then just back from 6 months in Dubna). Surely the color or colors of Soviet banknotes is/are easily verifiable, and even if the joke is not, a Soviet preference for green would make the same point. --Jerzy(t) 09:29, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

[edit] RYB Tradition

Above it says that RYB tradition is on its way out. True or false: a good estimate on when it will be complete is around 2040. 66.245.105.9 23:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of terms associated with the color green

At least some of these should be merged into this article. anthony (see warning) 22:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2005

[edit] Green wavelength

Look at the range of green's wavelength and blue's wavelength. These appear to have nothing in between despite the sequence:

Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Cyan-Blue-Violet

Any comments on what to do with these?? Georgia guy 01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green wavelength 2

in 1 E-7 m :

  • 500-520 nm — wavelength of cyan light
  • 520-565 nm — wavelength of green light

in this article :

  • Green light has a wavelength of roughly 490-570 nm

quite confusing isn't it ? --FoeNyx 11:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Looking at the original text of this article by User:Zundark the spelling Colour was used. Why is this now Color? I think Wikipedia guidelines state that for non-culture/country specific articles such as this, the original language variant should be used.Arcturus 13:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No response by 3 April so I'll change instances of Color to Colour in this article. This will reflect the original writer's intention and go a small way towards making Wikipedia less American-centric (I don't think it matters that most, if not all, of the other Colour articles use US spelling). Arcturus 11:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to make a list of the top 10 things that Wikipedians complain about. I know for sure that U.S.-centrism is one of them and another is articles that someone is more likely going to want to use a dictionary. Georgia guy 14:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Maybe we should put up a banner, "Please don't change spellings, british or american spelling is both fine!" on this page. You see, every couple of months all the spellings move from color to colour and back, with the occaisional flamewar in between. it'd be nice if people just left it :-) Kim Bruning 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point! I'm quite happy with the other colour articles using color, but this one did start off as colour. I don't know about most of the others, though in my edits on Scarlet (color) I've maintained the originial color. I think I'll move onto something more important. Arcturus 18:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bad point! For the sake of consistency all the color articles should use either 'color' or 'colour', not a mix of both. I do not really care which, but since the main article already is color and other colors also use color, we better use that. MH 11:03, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia guideline (at least I don't think there is) which states that articles in any sort of series should maintain the same spelling preferences. The guidelenes do state, however, that the spelling preference of the first major contributor should be adopted - hence for Green it's Colour, as previously noted. This is maintaining Wiki standards. Yes, most of the colour articles use Color, but some (Orange and Cream for example) use the alternative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The reader will not find it jarring when moving from one article to another, as he might with mixed spellings in the same article. Having some of the colour articles use colour help to redress the massive bias towards American spelling and grammar that is currently exhibited by Wikipedia. This change to Color should not have been effected without at least some debate. Arcturus 18:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Orange
About these coordinates
About these coordinates
— Color coordinates —
Hex triplet #FFA500
B (r, g, b) (255, 165, 0)
HSV (h, s, v) (38°, 100%, 100%)
Source [Unsourced]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)
> There is no Wikipedia guideline...
Then maybe there should be one...
> but some (Orange (colour) and Cream (colour) for example) use the alternative... This change to Color should not have been effected without at least some debate.
Then change the color infobox template as well.
MH 12:11, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

[edit] Does this make sense??

A few Internet sites say that green is the easiest color for the eye to see and that yellow is the most difficult. How does this make sense?? Georgia guy 03:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

that is becuase the human eye can most easily distinguish shades of green. that is why it is used in night vision you *** **** fool. 66.166.172.178 14:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from the use of explitives in your responses. Trust me, yelling at someone online doesn't help sway them to your cause. Georgia guy may not have your expertise in night vision, but the point of wikipedia is that it is a place to learn, to become less of a *** **** fool, as it were. Ame Errante 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yellow can sometimes blend in with white, but that's all I know. Evan Robidoux 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add any confusion, but I will add another different idea to the pot. The way I remember it being explained in Physics class was that the eye is most responsive to the green/yellow portions of the visible light spectrum because it is in the center (I don't remember the reason as to why). Therefore, green/yellow would be more noticable than red/blue at the same intensities. I remember being told that was the reason why the newer fire engines, other emergency vehicles, and some road signs were painted a green/yellow color.Stovetopcookies 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2006

[edit] Horrible Article

This is a horrible article. It is now being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk)

Don't like it, don't read it.Stovetopcookies 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lime/ green, no cmyk representation, HUH?

I don't know about you, but green green as in the g in rgb is just 0,255,0 , and the cmyk value is 100,0,100,0 , as far as I can calculate. The 0,128,0 has a cmyk value of 100,0,100,50 (at a black pullout of 100%). Could someone source the current claim in the article? Kim Bruning 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever worked with CMYK directly? This is not a bizarre claim, it's just a basic fact. Any software which works accurately in CMYK will reject such a bright green or convert it to the much darker "greenest" CMYK value. The exact shade used would depend on the CMYK profile used. RGB to CMYK conversions are meaningless at best, but that one was just too fantastically wrong to remain. Notinasnaid 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Look for instance at the picture [2], which is part of [3]: the picture shows how utterly wrong the simplistic "RGB to CMYK" ideas are. Notinasnaid 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I get a 403 on one of those URLs.
The problem is that the color does map to those coordinates, but these coordinates are outside the normal gamut of colors provided by real life ink. If we had perfect ink, these values would be the correct mapping. I do agree that a warning to that effect would be useful, I don't agree to removing the mapping altogether, because it is occasionally useful. Kim Bruning 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for perhaps reverting outside by area of expertise but I agree with Kim. I think this situation reflects a bigger problem with the whole colours thing on Wikipedia. Some of the colours are given with the simple, 'naive' CMYK values (i.e. my naive photo editing software agrees exactly with them), whereas others are given with what I assume are values more realistic in the real world. I think someone with authority needs to decide which ones should be used, rather than having a inconsistent mix of different systems throughout. I'd personally say that CMYK (100,0,100,0) is no more correct than RGB (0,255,0), all RGB and CMYK values need to be transformed according to the properties of the inks/phosphors involved before they can be used. If I went to a printer and asked for a bright green rectangle on a piece of paper, he'd probably use CMYK (100,0,100,0) or similar; he wouldn't say "No-one can print green, it's impossible." --RobertStar20 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3d8e01

What color would you say E9ECFF as? I thought at first hat was the color for green, but, no, it's not. The Web Color for it is 008000. Is there any differences?
Look these are what they look like:
008000
3d8e01
I see none, but, that's just me. 4myself4 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 24 million combinations of colour possible if you code them this way. A lot of them, probably a million or two, will look green. These are similar, but not identical, colors. Notinasnaid 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlucky?

has anyone else heard of green being an unlucky colour? --86.20.247.36 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Donald Campbell wouldn't have anything green anywhere near him. He certainly considered it an unlucky colour, and I've heard this superstition elsewhere. Arcturus 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2007

[edit] Irish Flag

I think the statement about the green in the Irish flag being derived from shamrock is untrue. See this link to the FOTW website [4]. There's no mention of it on that site. If no dissenters, I'll remove the statement in a couple of days. Arcturus 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of that, but would love to know where the association of green with Ireland comes from. Care to work together finding out why as opposed to deleting without replacing? --sony-youthtalk 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the statement is probably untrue. I imagine that green is associated with Ireland because we get lots of rain, so the grass is very green and there is rather a lot of it. List of country nicknames gives: "The Emerald Isle - from the lush green of the Irish landscape". Grass is certainly a lot more common than shamrocks. Martin 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this website gives a definitive answer [5]. Sony-youth - agreed. Can anyone find out anything else? If so, add it here and I'll edit the article accordingly. Arcturus 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


The green in the Irish flag represents the mainly Catholic 26 republican counties of Ireland, the orange represents the other 6 mainly Protestant counties in Northern Ireland. Over the years a lot of conflict has occured between the two major religions of the country and so the white represents the anticipated peace. laura murphy (<email removed for your protection>), 18.41, 12 april 2007

I have removed this information, because more detail on the flag of Ireland more properly belongs in Flag of Ireland. Also, it is unsourced. Notinasnaid 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green-eyed monster

Why is jealousy associated with the color green? Drutt 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Shakespeare -

Used to be (and still is sometimes) yellow-eyed monster, until Shakespeare's Othello:[6]
IAGO (Act iii., Sc. 3 lines 189-91): O, beware, my lord, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock The meat it feeds on.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

I see that the main image of this article (the very first one) is that of a mossy-green fountain in Austria.

Mossy-green fountain

Now, even though this image shows something green, I think that there could be some other better image to serve as cover image for this article. Here are my suggestions for other images to replace the current one as cover image:

Shades of green

Other shades of green

Green bar showing different shades on a gradient

Green cube showing different shades

Different shades of green shown through pixels; has green pixels at the center and even includes colors associated with green on the sides

2 gradients showing different shades of green; the one at the bottom also associates green with other colors

Light shades of green in the center and darker shades on the sides

♠Tom@sBat 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I´ve changed my mind... The image of that green fountain looks good; I had thought that there was a "color" infobox for green in general, but as their isn´t one on this article, the imagewould not look very well alone. I´ll investigate a bit on the possibility of an infobox "color" for all of green in general and then I´ll see about its image... ♠Tom@sBat 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see thet the gradient image has been removed... So, no main infobox image at all? ♠TomasBat 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion before, but I was struck by how unattractive that image was, and noted the other color infoboxes don't have an image (at least, Red, the first and only one I checked); so I took it out. It's better this way. Dicklyon 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok; no problem. Thanks for being bold. ♠TomasBat 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing Green Information

This article is difficult to read. If we want it to be a good article, we will need to organize it more. I'll add some headings and order to it, see how it goes.

Good idea. You should also feel free to throw out any unsourced factoids, since sources have long been called for and don't seem to be forthcoming. Be bold. Dicklyon 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please get rid of that weasel word "considered" that seems to be creeping its way through Wikipedia like a virus ?! Its fine when tiptoeing round a sensitive topic which is legitimately a matter of opinion, but it is becoming plastered (OK, I've now mixed my metaphors) across toomany articles (It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you !!!) (Chris Jones - not signed in)

No, it's never fine. Just delete any such items; anyone who wants them back will have to come with a source. Dicklyon 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needed sections for a "good article"

In my opinion, this article still needs decent sections about green in art and art history, about green in color science, and a descriptive section about green pigments and industrial production of green things (instead of just a list of pigments), and maybe a section about how the green light used in CRTs/LCDs is produced and how green is mixed from cyan and yellow inks in printers. Does anyone know of good sources that might detail the history of the use of green in painting? --jacobolus (t) 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. My strengths lie with culture, etymology, and history, so I can handle those things. Science is definitely not my forte, though. So far all we have about art is the picture of the green devil, but I'll find more, and I'll make sure all the culture stuff is cited, as well. Wrad 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] variations of green

I don't think it's a good idea to give each color name ("kelly green", "islamic green", etc.) its own article; they are unlikely to ever be more than stubs. What we should do instead is make a separate article called something like "Named variations of green", and consolidate them all there, also including "olive green", "bright green", "office green", "hunter green", "emerald green", etc. etc. --jacobolus (t) 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a concrete example, all the factoids from emerald (color) are already included in this article ("green"), so it contains no unique useful content whatsoever (except a color triplet taken from a video game forum—what a source!), and should be merged into a larger article or deleted. --jacobolus (t) 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea either, but I like it better than putting them up so prominently on this page. Why have the obscure "Kelly Green" and not turquoise or teal? This is a violation of WP:Undue weight. If we have one shade, we need them all. I personally think that the template at the bottom is sufficient. As for the articles I created. I could care less if they were deleted. I just didn't want them here. Merge them into an article, but not this one. Wrad 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps page for "minor shade of green" (though with a better title than that) would be a better solution. I think that a lot of the articles should be merged but agree that it probably shouldn't be into the green article itself. PaleAqua 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info in the infobox

This article covers many different shades of green, not just #00ff00. I'm trying to find a source that will outline the ranges of green on the hex scale, but no luck so far. Anyhow, I think that the infobox should outline ranges, not one specific shade, at least for these main articles. Any idea where this kind of information can be found. Wrad 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you'll find any such sources; there are no agreed boundaries for "green", but there are sets of named colors with specific standard RGB values, such as the X11 set. That's what's generally found in the info boxes, which show a specific named color, what it looks like, and where the numbers come from; at least, that's what I thought they were for. The article of course covers a broader range than just the named RGB color. Dicklyon 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
So if we really want to be accurate, what do we do? Eyeball it? Give a rough estimate? Wrad 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
slices through L*a*b* space showing colors in sRGB which could be called "orange"
slices through L*a*b* space showing colors in sRGB which could be called "orange"
Nah, I think the best thing to do is show some hue slices through L*a*b* or a similar space, and clearly state "these slices of all colors of the sRGB gamut at x°, y°, and z° hue in the L*a*b* space". Something like this image to the right, except with greens instead of oranges. The other thing we can do is present information about the unique hue "green", and show the brightest color we can of that hue. Using X11 or similar colors is pretty misleading to readers, I think, as they're the arbitrary choices of some computer scientists who didn't necessarily have any color background. --jacobolus (t) 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
On the ohter hand, named sets like X11 colors are likely to be the only ones for which RGB numbers can be reliably sourced. Whatever info we present, it should be sourced. Dicklyon 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If all these hexes and RGBs are so unverifiable, I don't think they should be in our infoboxes. I would suggest revamping them to reflect what we can source. Possibly parameters for what wavelength range they encompass, X11 ranges, a picture, and a short list of what the color most often symbolizes (I can source this). Wrad 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The ones that are unsourceable shouldn't be there. The X11 colors and some other sets are important standards that need to be represented, though not necessarily in the individual color articles. Dicklyon 03:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
X11 colors can be sourced, but they're essentially arbitrary, and don't share any particularly useful information with the reader (in the color articles; they're useful in the context of an article about X11 colors, or web colors, or whatever). Research results about unique hues however have some scientific value. (and if we can get L*a*b* or xyY values, we can do a perfectly valid conversion from that to sRGB) --jacobolus (t) 06:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are just four unique hues: red, yellow, green, and blue. And no particular reason to believe that these have a unique relationship to a particular monochromatic wavelength. In an RGB system, it is easy say what they are, just by name correspondence and the red+green=yellow rule; so that's easy. But is it worth anything? The X11 colors, on the other hand, and other such RGB sets, even if not uniquely specified colorimetrically are some standardized names that widely used by the prominent medium of our day, the inter-web-highway-thing. In the case of "green" and the others, I'm pretty sure the X11 spec will agree with the brightest unique hue: [0, 255, 0], #00FF00, etc. Dicklyon 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science ref for human eye's sensitivity to green

Here is a good ref for this http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/humanvisionintro.html . I'm not too confident in my ability to summarize the relevant points, though. Wrad 04:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging spring green into article on green

Object--spring green is at 150 degrees on the HSV color wheel and green is at 120 degrees. They are separate and distinct colors as different as red and orange or as orange and yellow (those colors are also 30 degress from each other). Spring green is a very important color because it is one of the 12 basic colors of the HSV color wheel at 30 degree intervals from each other (the 12 colors are: red,orange,yellow, chartreuse, green, spring green, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, and rose), and therefore spring green should remain in its own article since it is one of the 12 colors and is therefore a color of notable significance in its own right. There are also HSL Color Charts for calculating rough ballpark figures for the hsv (hsl) values for any color. The charts are halfway down the website. There are 12 charts, one for each of the 12 colors: W3C TR CSS3 Color Module, HTML4 color keywords HSL Color Charts: Keraunos 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow here. Who are you objecting to? Is someone trying to merge these? Wrad 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand. What do we need to do that we're not already doing? I don't see anything here about spring green. Wrad 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Jacobolus wanted to merge spring green into green. It is posted at the beginning of the article on spring green. I think this is an extremely bad idea because spring green is one of the 12 basic HSV color wheel colors at 30 degree intervals from each other (all other colors are made from a combination of these 12 colors with each other or with white or black) and therefore spring green deserves an article in it own right. Keraunos 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the article on green is so long there is no room for any more colors. Keraunos

OK. Wrad 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting theory. I'm unable to find any web page or book that mentions the name "spring green" anywhere near the number 150. Hundreds of pages mention "twelve hues", but none of those mention "spring green" What source are you using for this statement that spring green is one of 12 fundamental colors or hues? I realize that the X11 color named SpringGreen is at 00FF7F, which is very nearly 150 degrees, but is that fundamental to the name or the color, or just a peculiarity of the X11 set of colors? Dicklyon 06:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
When the X11 web colors, which are based on the HSV color wheel were invented in the mid 1990s, spring green was defined as the name of the color at 150 degrees. Keraunos 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keraunos, just as an aside, could you not mark brand new discussion comments as "minor edits"? Thanks. :) --jacobolus (t) 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone add a section about green's relation to computers?

Green and computing is a well-established relationship in popular culture. Text on old-fashioned computers being a glowing green colour has long been the stereotype in fiction and the media; I guess that idea comes from the early Commodore systems, like the TRS 80's. Anyway, the relationship between the colour and computing is clear to anyone who's seen the Matrix movies, where copious amounts of green were used in a huge number of scenes to remind the viewers how the series was about a virtual computer reality. I'm also pretty sure scenes in movies at night with a character at a computer usually have the room bathed in green. I don't really have the expertise to write about the subject, but if anyone can think of a more accurate and eloquent description of the correlation and could add something to the article, that would be much appreciated. VolatileChemical 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about that as well. I've run across some research that suggests that moviemakers have taken advantage of green's connection with nature in order to twist it and place the color in unnatural situations, giving it that "false naturalism" we find in movies like Frankenstein and The Matrix. Still working on it though... Wrad 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Green-and-black computer terminals are certainly older than Commodore machines. But while we're at it, what about oscilloscopes? --jacobolus (t) 06:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also just as an aside the TRS-80 was from Tandy not Commodore. Green did have a bit of history with computers. I remember all the green bar tractor-feed paper when using teletypes (dating myself). A lot of the terminals such as the ones from Wyse, DEC (VT-52, VT-100) and Tektronix (4014) used green monochrome monitors. Green is also a common color of circuit boards. PaleAqua 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's all interesting, but we can't really do anything with it until we can show that it is somehow important to the color. I'm going to delve deeper and see if I can find a symbolic association with technology. We also may want to find out why all these things are green. Was it a random choice or is there some sanity behind it? Wrad 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking everywhere, and I can't seem to find any significant meaning behind any of this. I personally think green is strongly associated with technology, but without a ref to support it, we can't add it to the article :( Wrad 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I imagine it was a mixture of chance and limits of technology. My thought on the displays is that color CRT were expensive, monochrome was cheaper, green was a color that could be readily made by just coating a tub with P1 Phosphors and made targeting the electron gun simpler. I'm not sure why the solder masks used on circuit boards tend to be green. As for the green bar paper there were other colors available though green was the most common. Again I don't know if there was a reason for this or if it was an arbitrary choice that held because of economies of scale or was because green was perceived to be the color of technology. Not sure there is enough sources/proof to actually add any of this. PaleAqua 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can go two ways, like the chicken and egg question: Which came first, the color association or the design choice? If enough things associated with computers are green for a long enough time, people are going to start making that association themselves, whether the design choice was intentional or not. Wrad 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whew! It's actually pretty well referenced now!

How about that! I'm sure I'll have a bit more research to do in the lower sections, but it sure does feel good to have things verified. Wrad (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another infobox?

Why was another infobox added? Last I knew, we seemed to have agreed not to list shades, and were debating the worth of an infobox altogether. Wrad 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. But if it is there, it should be accurate about what the color is. --jacobolus (t) 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I need my memory refreshed. It seemed as though the only truly accurate thing on the infobox now was X11 and wavelength parameters, is that right? But even those were only roughly correct since everyone has a different opinion about where green stops and other colors begin. I'd like to experiment with a "Symoblism" parameter. I'm not sure if it would work, but I know that I could source it.
Vagueness is just something we'll have to deal with when it comes to colors, in my opinion. I'm not really opposed to vague facts in the infobox, as long as they're sourced and relevant. Colors aren't really concrete things that be pinned down anyway. I just don't want it to get out of hand. Wrad 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mostly agreed, though I wonder about RGB/HSV coordinates in general being in the opening box for colors such as green at least as far as they imply they are the value. A symbolism parameter sounds interesting but it would have to be vague as well or handle with differences between cultures. It would seem to me it would either have to be free form and often have multiple lines or there would need to be multiple fields, say eastern symbolism, liturgical symbolism western symbolism, etc... PaleAqua 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want anything like that second option. That's far too complex and specific. Even Eastern cultures aren't that different. Free form may be better. How about: "Commonly represents: sickness, health, growth, hope, nature, youth, Islam, and envy". I believe that covers the most common meanings in all cultures. More specific or odd meanings can be found in the article. Basically, we want broad meanings, and meanings that cover a wide area, not localized meanings. In China, for example, green is associated with East, but that is too localized of a meaning to be in the infobox. Also, Green often stands for agriculture, but the broader term "nature" covers that meaning along with others well enough. Wrad 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, especially with the "Commonly..." bit. I was sort of having this apprehension of seeing mile long infoboxes with everyone adding niche symbols. PaleAqua 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, yeah. That would be a problem. Wrad 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Green
— Spectral coordinates —
Wavelength 520–570 nm
Frequency  ??? THz
— Commonly represents —
sickness, health, growth, hope, nature, youth, Islam, and envy
About these coordinates
About these coordinates
— Color coordinates —
Hex triplet #008000
sRGBB (r, g, b) (0, 128, 0)
HSV (h, s, v) (120°, 100%, 50%)
Source HTML/CSS[1]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)
Tea and crumpets added a commonly represents field to the infobox, and then I redid it a bit so that the header was optional and that spectral colors split off. See a sample to the right. I left the picture out in the sample to save vertical space in the talk page. PaleAqua 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the second info box because the only authoritative source we have for color numbers, the HTML/X11 specs, show green as 008000 and lime as 00FF00; both are important prototypical greens, in my opinion, one for the name and one for the value. I'd be OK doing it some other way, but since I just had reverted someone changing to an unsourced definition, this was intended to forestall such changes. Dicklyon 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep ourselves limited to one infobox, personally. Two just seems cluttered. Wrad 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wrad. Having two in the lead looks very disorganized. --BorgQueen 06:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAN review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a beautiful piece of work, but it still needs work in one section with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Changed b (MoS):
    Please convert the section on Pigments from list to prose, and it will be awesome! This is the only section which does not stand well as to why it is notable for the article as it is presented.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Changed the rating to pass following improvements
    Good luck improving the article

Popped into a few other articles on various colors - red, black, white, yellow. This article is so very, very well written in comparison. Thank you for the wonderful work! SriMesh | talk 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. We'll see if we can flesh it out and/or combine it with the science section. Wrad 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! State what a pigment is, why these particular pigments in the listing are used in relation to green - paint mixtures whatever. The lead paragraph was so excellent, - the principles of WP lead were all used very well - , soit was so so nice to see. Contact me when you are done changes, and I will take the GAN off hold and into pass!  :-)

SriMesh | talk 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pigment info has been added to the minerals section since the two are so related. Wrad (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As the updates are completed, I have passed this article into Good article status! Good job on this article, it is very comprehensive about the colour green, as well as well written. SriMesh | talk 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food Colorings

Should something be done with this list? Chlorophyll is mentioned now in the new prose in the minerals section. Quinoline Yellow, a limish yellow, also known as E104 and FD&C Yellow No 10 seems to be baned in many places recently, especially with concerns on the effects of hyperactivity in children. Green S, E142 also seems to be prohibited in many countries apparently for similar reasons as E104. PaleAqua (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disambig

Growth needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Quinoline Yellow as well Randomblue (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess someone fixed Quinolene. I don't really want to disambig growth, the disamib link is about the best link there is among the options we have. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is talking about "growth" in general, not specifically "cell growth" or anything else. As for Quinoline Yellow, nobody fixed it, because there is nothing to fix. It is the right article. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that did confuse me. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2008

[edit] The Hex triplet in the info box....

I've noticed that the hex triplet in the info box seems to be #008000. While this does represent a shade of green wouldn't #00FF00 be more logical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisected8 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are multiple greens and at least #008000 is named as green in a citable external source, though I imagine an X11 source for green could be used. The X11 rgb files though are not as uniform from what I've seen as the HTML/CSS stuff. To be honest I am not happy with having any such coordinates predominately displayed in the info box. I'd rather an approximate range of frequencies, wavelengths, and maybe hues. I would like to see Template:Infobox color evolve to be able to highlight more general information rather than a specific* (well at least with sRGB it close to specific) color. PaleAqua (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The hex code for the colour green strikes me as something that doesn't really need a specific source for the actual digits. Any explaination of the hex codes for colours should be sufficent for any given co-ordinates.--Bisected8 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree. If we're going to give definitive codes for a color, they need to have a source. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
But a single Hex code would never be "definitive", it would just be one example of a wide range of shades. #00FF00 would just be the simplist instance of green.--Bisected8 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not look at three different references for what green is in hex and use the term "roughly" as a qualifier? I know we can't be exact, but most people agree roughly on what green is. Wrad (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Roughly sounds a little too wishy-washy, though I like the idea. I'm not sure how well multiple sources might work though, #00FF00 by X11 or RGB definition and say #008000 by HTML/CSS are two different values. If we average them, then the value we present matches neither source, if we pick on than the other source shows a different value etc. I thought at one point about proposing a change to the infobox that would allow multiple coordinate blocks (ie have an Green in HTML/CSS subsection, and Green in X11 subsection etc...), but decided that would be overboard. Something expressing a range might be better, or how about changing color coordinates to representative color coordinates. It still implies the roughly but allows a single value to be picked. PaleAqua (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hex codes only make sense to definitively document particular colors from particular defined sets with reliable sources. Otherwise, we have to accept every color that Karaunos measures out of his book. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I float around the internet, the two numbers I see representing green are #008000 and #00FF00. Neither one really dominates the other, and no other number seems to be suggested. We may want to consider listing both as a range. If we really stick to notability rules, I doubt that will cause us problems. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated Template:Infobox color so that the titlebar color can be optionally specified separately from the hex parameter and updated the info box to show both colors. I used #00C000 as the titlebar bgcolor as an average of the two colors... might need a better way to handle this. Prehaps work out including a small block of color next to both coordinates. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofit headers for topic years

11-Jan-2008: Because this talk-page is generalized, I divided it by year-headers ("Topics from 2003" etc.), rather than archiving: most topics are still pertinent. -Wikid77 07:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green fireworks smoke or flares

11-Jan-2008: I saw no discussion about green fireworks, so (under "Green#In minerals and chemistry") I have added short sentences about compounds used to create green fireworks, green flares, and green smoke (+new source footnote). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Wrad (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look out of place, GJ--Bisected8 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Islam from the infobox

Does anyone have any objections to removing islam from the info box, it seems far to specific and inappropriate. For instance the red page does not say it is the colour of socialism or the blue page capitalism etc. To associate a single political/religious idea to a primary colour when so many others use it seems unfair and un-encyclopedic. Especially since Islamic colours are not just green but green, red, white and black hence the number of arab flags that bear those colours. Just want to see what the rest of you think :) --Curuxz (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that red should rather be changed to carry socialism and blue shoud be changed to carry whatever it should. Yes, red, white and black are also the colors of islam, but green is the holiest one. It is the color of paradise. I can't emphasize enough how highly Muslims regard it. I think if we take it out we risk being too western-centric. A lot of other groups may use the colors, sure, but do those groups have hundreds of millions of followers? No. Keeping it in the infobox is in no way unfair. Wrad (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well you have just agreed with me that they claim 4 colours (or 3 and 1 shade to be precise) you cant call dibs on half the primary colours and expect that to be ok! I don't think this is a west east thing, I think its a content neutral thing, no other political or religious group (that i can see) has made it into the info box of a colour. Information about its specific connotations are else where on the page. This seems to be in breach of wikipedia guidelines on neutrality of content regardless of how many millions subscribe to the idea. Green is NOT the colour of Islam, Islam choses to place special value on green and compared with the other items in the various info boxes i think that is a fundamental difference... --Curuxz (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Green IS the color of Islam, and there are several sources which can back that up (start with the one in the infobox). I think rather than taking Islam out, Environmentalism should be added in as well. I think it's totally fine to add (to quote WP:NPOV) "significant viewpoints" on the color green (i.e. those with hundreds of millions of adherents) into the infobox. In fact, it would be unfair not to include them. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well then while I remain in disagreement about if it is or is not the colour (since there are 4) of islam I will take your point about enviromentalists. It should be a change to all the colour info boxes in fairness such as Green is for environmentalists and red for socialism (see Red_flag). There are 'significant viewpoints' on both of those points among others. I think by Islam remaining you are opening the door to having to put lots of different view points in the info boxes of equal value. --Curuxz (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect caption

Under the "In human culture" section a painting of Michael Pacher's is shown, "St. Wolfgang and the devil" that is incorrectly labeled as "St. Augustine and the devil"