Talk:Color/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (4)

Please respond to discussion on talk page.

Change:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of color vision described through primary color and color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 11:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (5)

Reference the article primary color

Change: Similarly, most human color perceptions can be generated by a mixture of three colors called primaries. This is used to reproduce color scenes in photography, printing, television, and other media. There are a number of methods or color spaces for specifying a color in terms of three particular primary colors. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the particular application.

To: Similarly, most human color perceptions can be generated by a mixture of three colors called primaries. This is used to reproduce color scenes in photography, printing, television, and other media. There are a number of methods or color spaces for specifying a color in terms of three particular primary colors. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the particular application. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Done North8000 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (6)

The language link for Color: Color (North American English) is inaccurate. Color is wholly an American English spelling, Colour is the preferred and common spelling in Canadian English. It would be more accurate to have the language link replaced with American English(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English#Differences_between_American_and_British_English)

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/canadian-english-american-english/ https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/canadian-english-vs-american-english https://westernlinguistics.ca/ https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20150820-why-is-canadian-english-unique Arthwys1 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

1. There is no reason to reference the article color vision as visual perception. It is misleading and is coded as: color vision|visual perception

2. The article primary color needs to be referenced early in the color article. It should be referenced in the opening paragraph and before Physics of Color.

Change:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (North American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of color vision described through primary color and color categories with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (7)

Color categories is ambiguous and does not have a wiki article to expand upon whereas primary color does.

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through primary color. 2605:8D80:404:4748:9CEE:CB41:2B1F:D3A6 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to that change. Our job is to explain the topic here; internal links are secondary. So removing explanation to facilitate internal linking, and removing explanation here to substitute explanation elsewhere both go against that. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary colours is not an ambiguous term, whereas colour categories does not currently exist even within the wikipedia universe and is therefore unclear. With this in mind, I am in favour of this change to exclude colour categories as a term and replace it with the clean and clearly defined primary colours.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021 (2)

Add link to vertebrate

Change:

This perception of color derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans).

To:

This perception of color derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done EN-Jungwon 06:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (8)

Remove the confusing undefined term color ‘’categories’’ and replace with clearly defined primary color.

See consensus on talk page.

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through primary color, with names such as red, green, or blue. 2605:8D80:404:4748:9CEE:CB41:2B1F:D3A6 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not all colors are described through primary colors. Color categories is a better explanation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does a root vegetable without a retina think that ‘’color categories’’ is more descriptive than primary color? What is a color category? Is a ‘’color category’’ the same as a ‘’color’’? If not, how is it different? UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please tell us which definition of the word category you are using in this sentence. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your post missed the main point of ScottishFinnishRadish's post (and I agree with them) Which is that the narrowing which occurs by substituting "primary color" is wrong.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Change

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English)

To:

Color (American English), also called colour (Commonwealth English) UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Implies that these two are alternative names, when they are not: they're just alternative spellings of the same word (which is also pretty much identically pronounced, too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors describe all colors mathematically and realistically by definition.

The use of the word category is unclear.

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, and blue, just to name a few. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying the definition of color mathematically and realistically UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Tintinkien (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names, or hues, such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not particularly relevant. ―Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021 (2)

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. This perception of color derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans).

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. This perception of color, color vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. IMO a good idea North8000 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

So people understand what we’re talking about when we say sets.

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. 70.71.242.148 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Not right now. See the discussion above about removing the circular definition. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

New opener: Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in pseudocolor images. This perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). Scotopic vision may contribute to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey. This likely plays an important role in the perception of hues, colorfulness, and intensity. Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed. This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity, etc.

To: Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), sometimes represented in pseudocolor, is a variety of properties and concepts related to identifying and differentiating light based on wavelengths. It is a feature of visual sensation in visual perception produced by the visual system. Color is any one of or any combination of white, black, grey, red, green, blue, primary color, secondary color, tertiary color, etc. and can be further described through hues, colorfulness, intensity, HSL and HSV, etc. The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). Scotopic vision also contributes to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey. Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed. This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity, etc. Conceptual color (not necessarily real) can be a mathematical element(s) of a color space for a given color model (eg. RGB), or irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see talk page above “Defining color using color” before approving or declining this edit. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Still circular in the first sentence. Define "color" without using "color" or things dependent on "color". Continue from there. Why is "pseudocolor" important enough to be in the first sentence? This is plunging way too deep in the first paragraph. Assume people are going to read the article -- or at least past the lede -- if they're interested in the physics, the biology, the perceptions, retinal ganglion cells, HSV representations, mesopic vision, mathematics, etc. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD. Too long winded, too detailed, and needs to be pared down to the bare essentials. As I've said before, the opener should aim to be similar to other dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of colour, which this isn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English) is a differentiating feature created by the mind. It is the characteristic of visual perception described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is another example of a weird and non-standard definition colour. Saying that colour is "a differentiating feature created by the mind" tells us almost nothing. The human mind can differentiate between a cat and a dog, so what? Please don't keep proposing definitions of colour that no mainstream dictionary or encyclopedia would use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s where we’re at from consensus on the wiki talk page defining color with color. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The starting point should be a definition that is broadly similar to ones that are found in other dictionaries and encyclopedias. I've never come across one which defined colour as "a differentiating feature created by the mind", or anything along these lines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus"? You suggested it and one person agreed. This is not consensus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the Columbia encyclopedia says: "color, effect produced on the eye and its associated nerves by light waves of different wavelength or frequency. Light transmitted from an object to the eye stimulates the different color cones of the retina, thus making possible perception of various colors in the object." This is ok and notes that different frequencies and wavelengths of light are needed to produce colour, something that I've already suggested. It also notes that colour is a phenomenon associated with perception in the eye.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Or a re-written version to avoid a copyvio. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Defining "color" using "color"

Might it make sense to at least in the first paragraph define "color" without using "color"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Colour is basically light occurring at different frequencies and wavelengths. It is possible to create different colours by mixing together other colours, but the current wording in the opening sentence isn't an ideal introduction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Until this edit in 2016, the definition was "the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow, etc." The circular definition needs to go. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO the current lead sentence is correct and not circular.North8000 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to fit quite well into Circular definition: A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to say that "Colour is the visible spectrum of light" or something similar. The current opening sentence is conflating colour with ways of creating colours by mixing primary colours. Britannica (which is of course better than Wikipedia) says "colour, also spelled color, the aspect of any object that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation. In physics, colour is associated specifically with electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of wavelengths visible to the human eye. Radiation of such wavelengths constitutes that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum known as the visible spectrum—i.e., light."[1] There are many different ways of defining colours and HSL is only one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

wikt:Color just says, "the spectral composition of visible light". That seems sufficient for the first sentence. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Once you start getting technical, there are several meanings for the word; the first sentence uses two different ones which is why said that it's not circular. But I'm fine with changing it because I think that the first sentence too unclear and hard to understand.North8000 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "Color is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye"? This is more in line with how an encyclopedia and dictionary usually define the word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, that definition doesn't differentiate "color" from "visible light". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just about anything brief will be fine with me. So we aren't trying to tackle covering the various meanings in one sentence. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A color can also be conceptual; see

Primary colors can also be conceptual (not necessarily real), either as additive mathematical elements of a color space or as irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy.

Also, the intro you suggested does not incorporate how the human eye plays a role in the creation of color as a valid real concept; note that color is not perceived by people who have always been totally blind. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would however, like to see hue, lightness, and saturation incorporated early on in the article without removing visual perception or primary color. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Color is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye" Also does not explain that multiple quantized electromagnetic spectra photons can interact with each other to produce different colors. Colors are defined as ranges of photons, quantized electromagnetic spectra. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, all that fits nicely into the rest of the article. Just not the first sentence, or perhaps not even the first paragraph. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggest another opener please so we can discuss it. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

“The spectral composition of visual light”does not adequately describe perception and assumes an understanding of vision; therefore the current description is more elaborate. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just so that we don't jump down a deep rabbit hole in the first sentence, let's understand how deep that hole is. Some of the many meanings are:

• Names assigned to particular frequencies/ wavelengths of visible light
• Names assigned to particular combinations of frequencies/wavelengths of visible light
• Subjective variable human perception of light and combinations of light received by the eye
• Subjective variable perception of light and combinations of light (in the human-visible spectrum) received by the eyes of animals
• Anything (e.g. sciences, attributes etc., reproduction, transformation, display, decomposition, components of, discernment of) relating in any way to any of the above.

That's why I think that a very brief first sentence that does not try to tackle the above is best. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Let's see.

• dictionary.com uses "the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object".
• Websters has "a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects"
• Another is "The sensation produced by the effect of light waves striking the retina of the eye."
• Another "a component of light which is separated when it is reflected off of an object."

I don't think we really need to get into the more metaphorical and unusual usages of the term in the first few paragraphs; that is a term applied to quarks, for example, is pretty much irrelevant to the slice-of-the-spectrum meaning. I'd even be inclined to go the route that Simple takes in simple:Colour: "Colour is a property of light as seen by people" -- though this suggests that non-people don't perceive color, which I don't think is the case, since we know critters can make choices based upon the wavelengths their eyes receive. "Color is a property of light" might be the core of it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I like “The sensation produced by the effect of light waves striking the retina of the eye.” It is more descriptive and accurate than “Color is a property of light”.

Should we specify that we are talking about real color and incorporate the following?: colors can also be conceptual (not necessarily real), either as additive mathematical elements of a color space or as irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy.

UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That definition isn't ideal because it would also be a fine description of Photalgia: "The sensation (of pain) produced by the effect of light waves striking the retina", sometimes followed by someone saying "Where are my sunglasses? It's way too bright out here!" Color isn't "the" sensation; it is "a" sensation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

How about:

Color is the visual sensation produced by the visual system stimulated by light waves interacting with the eye and retina. Conceptual color (not necessarily real) can be additive mathematical elements of a color space, or irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Or we could use:

Color is the visual sensation produced by the visual system which is stimulated by light waves interacting with the eye and retina. Conceptual color (not necessarily real) can be additive mathematical elements of a color space for a given color model, or irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Both dive way too deep for the first paragraph of an article about something we actually all understand before we can read (and probably before we can talk.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say we perceive it before we can read or talk but we do not understand it. The purpose of a definition is to explain, which requires elaboration on the basic principles.

Color is not a property of light - light is colourless without interacting with an appropriate receptor.

"the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object". Is incomplete as light can also be produced by objects. This also does not narrow the definition of color to light in the visual spectrum.

Websters has "a phenomenon of light (such as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects". A tint, shade, hue, etc.. could all be defined as this.

Another "a component of light which is separated when it is reflected off of an object." This is inaccurate, there is no component separation, but rather a transformation from physical properties to perception. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

How about:

Color, with the exception of black, is defined as a range of wavelengths of visible light. Pseudocolor can show other wavelengths of light in color. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We could also say: Color is any one of or combination of white, black, grey, primary color, secondary color, tertiary color, and/or others UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OK this is a bad idea for a lead sentence but for discussion purposes does summarize. "Color is a variety of properties and concepts related to identifying and differentiating visible light based on wavelengths." North8000 (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW I know that "visible light" is usually redundant but still chose to use it. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm: maybe something like:

Color, sometimes represented in pseudocolor, is a variety of properties and concepts related to identifying and differentiating light based on wavelengths. It is a visual sensation produced by the visual system. Color is any one of or any combination of white, black, grey, primary color, secondary color, tertiary color, etc. and can be further described through HSL and HSV. Conceptual color (not necessarily real) can be a mathematical element(s) of a color space for a given color model, or irreducible phenomenological categories in domains such as psychology and philosophy. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We can represent color as invisible wavelengths of light in pseudocolor and visualize it so I have taken out visual. Also other animals visual spectra are different than our visible spectra so visible light depends on the animal you are talking about. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO that sound pretty deep technical and abstract for the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we want to strip everything away, as described above the other suggested openers similar to dictionaries and encyclopedias seem incomplete or technically incorrect UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You're diving way too quickly into detail. Read MOS:LEAD. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that color is a word with several different meanings, but, but due to their relationship and other factors, they need to be covered in a single article. So IMO we should have a brief first sentence that does not conflict with that but also does not try to tackle all of them. How about "Color is a variety of properties and concepts related to the wavelengths of visible light". And then after that the lead starts summarizing what is in the body of the article, which is what leads are supposed to do.North8000 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How about something like this for the first sentence?

Color is a differentiating feature created by the mind. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO that is the most important definition of color but not the only one. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s what I was thinking too UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Color is a differentiating feature created by the mind based on the spectral composition of visible light. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Which informs the reader of precisely nothing. Smell is a differentiating feature created by the mind based on the physical shape of molecules. Sound is a differentiating feature created by the mind caused by the varying pressure of air upon the eardrums. This is getting worse and worse. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm not in favor of UniversalHumanTransendence idea as a first sentence, IMO your strong criticism is based on situations which are not analogous. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it as "this is getting worse and worse." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The "differentiating feature" language is appealing. However, it makes me wonder whether it means that it is not possible to see a first color. You could see subsequent ones, but you couldn't see the first one, because you'd have no basis for differentiating it from anything else.

Also, for something to be "created by the mind", you first must admit to the existence of the mind, which not everyone does.

If it seems wrong to say that color is the spectral composition of visible light, then perhaps color could be fairly described as the perception of that composition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The "first color" thing is interesting philosophically. Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate is useful in that regard. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the first color would be perceivable because it would be differentiable from black - the absence of color. I will suggest: "Color is a differentiating perceptual feature of the visual sense directly related to the spectral composition of light." UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Except in extraordinary conditions (i.e., conditions that are not relevant for our hypothetical human), black isn't the absence of color. But even if we granted that claim for the sake of argument, that would give you "dark" (absence, or relative absence, of light) and "light" (presence of more light), rather than "black". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Color" has many meanings. The most common is for the use in "what color is that?" or ""are these colors the same?". Other than a small minority of cases, (giving certain monochmomatic wavelengths names) the hard science is that it is solely about human perception. And so IMO UniversalHumanTransendence's description of the most common meaning is the most accurate on on this page. It's just a really bad first sentence for the article. It only talks about the most common meaning, and is very abstract./technical. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

How about: "Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light" Then we can get into the more thorough / difficult stuff after that. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@North8000, that would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How about:

“Color is a perceptual attribute of an object that is dependent on the quantity and wavelength(s) of light coming from that object.” UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds overly complicated for the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mostly repeating what I wrote above UniversalHumanTransendence's description of the most common meaning is the most accurate on on this page. It's just a really bad first sentence for the article. Another issue is that it only talks about the most common meaning and so it excludes other meanings, and is very abstract/technical. But that type of expertise and perspective is needed in the article, starting somewhere around the second sentence.  :-) North8000 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I boldly put in the above brief sentence just to try to help this move forward and in the edit summary invited anybody to revert me if they disagree. It is short, not too heavy and does not exclude any of the meanings. My suggestion is that we stick with that for the brief first sentence and then after that start getting into the areas covered by the other suggestions. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative and going for it, I think that was a good move. In terms of the current first sentence I think we should remove the plurality of perceptions and attributes as I would say a color is unique. Light is technically quantized waves and so without going into details but leaving it more broad with respect to light let me suggest “A color is a perceptual attribute related to the properties of light.” Another option would be to relate it to the visual sense: “A color is a visual perceptual attribute related to the properties of light.”

This statement may also be strengthened by replacing ‘related to’ with ‘dependent on’ UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO I think that you understand the main meaning of color better than most. But I think that many of your proposals exclude the other secondary meanings which are different, even if they indirectly derive from the main meaning. For example, the practice of assigning names to particular wavelengths of light is color. Another is an automated RGB imaging and image processing system (e.g. machine vision) where the difference in wavelengths is used to differentiate between and segment objects...such is called a "color" system/process. But IMO after the short first sentence we can get into most specific/precise/informative material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that Brightness is also "a visual perceptual attribute related to the properties of light" (namely, perceiving how much there is).

I agree with North that the initial definition should not be narrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021 (3)

Stick with colors with clearly defined wavelengths in the first sentence.

Change:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple.

To:

Color (American English), or colour (Commonwealth English), is the characteristic of visual perception described through color sets of primary colors and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Very minor; I see no problem with it.North8000 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Was there any good reason to change purple to violet there? I don't get it. Are we denying the non-spectral colors like purple now for some reason? Not that the context of the sentence made any sense in the first place. What are primary colors in there for? They're not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light." ???

What's happening here? That start to the lead (as I see it now) is appalling. The continuation is not much better, unlike the rigour and sophistication of earlier versions. But this first sentence is a shocker. Come on people! It's a truly important article for Wikipedia, on a topic that is very widely misunderstood – even by those writing in philosophy, psychology, etc. Aim for excellence! If you are not capable of supplying it, at least strive to identify and retain excellence. 114.72.76.18 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you really have that one mixed up. The only substance in your complaint is that it it didn't have the "rigour and sophistication" of the previous one. In reality, the previous one was retained and moved to the second sentence, the "continuation". So you both lauded and criticized the same material in the same post. Please see the above discussion for a few of the key items we wrestled with. And if you have an idea to propose, please describe it here in talk. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not mixed up in the slightest, North8000. Read what I actually wrote: "The continuation is not much better, unlike the rigour and sophistication of earlier versions [my underlining]." I find the entire lead substandard, compared to earlier versions. Somewhere along the line this lead fell into a downward spiral. Let's analyse the first paragraph, as it stands:

"Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light. It is often described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in false color images. The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). Scotopic vision may contribute to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey. This likely plays an important role in the perception of hues, colorfulness, and intensity. Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed. This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity, etc."

Sentence by sentence now:

"Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light."

The wording itself comes as a shock. Distorted grammar, right at the start. Perhaps it should be expressed like this instead: "Color is an aspect of visual experience that depends primarily on the mix of wavelengths in light sensed by the eye."

"It is often described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet."

"RGB" is used without definition. And which primary colours are relevant here? Why not the four poles in the two opponent processes, which are at least equally relevant (blue–yellow; red–green). Why sets of combinations, rather than just combinations? None of this helps the non-colour-scientist reader to get a handle on anything.

"Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in false color images."

Colour can be used to visualise all manner of things, in all kinds of imaging including some that have nothing to do with the electromagnetic spectrum. So what? The article X-ray is linked, but why is it spelt with lower-case "x" here, inconsistently?

"The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans)."

How is the mention of mesopic vision (under that name) going to help the hapless non-specialist inquirer, in the lead (and not in the body of the article)? And mesopic vision is not distinct from colour vision, as this sentence has it ("color vision combined with mesopic vision"): it is an element in colour vision, as the linked article Color vision makes clear. Further confusion for the reader, which is not at all alleviated by the mention of ipRGCs! Those are not even mentioned in the body of the article where they belong (if anywhere; there may be a good reason for their not figuring at all in the article Color vision). Finally, "visible spectrum" is not something pre-settled that happens to cover what can be sensed by humans, as the reader might gather from this text; there is a visible spectrum for all animals equipped with eyes, and these spectra vary.

"Scotopic vision may contribute to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey."

Again, why is scotopic vision not mentioned under that name in the body of the article (where it belongs, if anywhere)? And in "visual perception" here, "visual" is entirely redundant. Might the reader have supposed that colours could be tasted, or felt? Where is the reference for the dubious listing of "black, white, and tints or shades of grey" here? Must rods (responsible for scotopic vision) be involved, when black, white, or greys are perceived? Highly unlikely! Why is the spelling grey given in the lead, when the article is in US English (see "gray" several times in the rest of the article, and no occurrences of "grey").

"This likely plays an important role in the perception of hues, colorfulness, and intensity."

Dubious. Is there a reference for this? No mention at Mesopic vision (nor at Scotopic vision), where it might be expected.

"Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed."

Grammar: "... through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected ...". No, "different wavelengths ... are reflected". As for avoiding "and/or", see WP:MOS. Perhaps this is meant: "... are associated with objects through which light of various wavelengths (at various intensities) is differentially transmitted or dispersed, or from which such light is differentially reflected." If so, that would need some careful thought to express lucidly for newcomers to the topic.

"This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity, etc."

What does "this" refer to, exactly? And both instances of "physical" appear to be redundant. What other properties are there, of objects and of light? If phase velocity is relevant and important (doubtful), it should be covered not here but in the body of the article (where it is not so much as mentioned).

After the first paragraph things get no better ("with internationally agreed color names like mentioned above"); but this initial sample will suffice to support my claim that the lead has spiralled into a decline. I'll raise just one error, from the second paragraph. Concerning the sensitivity of L cones: "... long wavelengths, peaking near 564–580 nm (red)". Wrong! As explained in the article, these cones "are most sensitive to light that is perceived as greenish yellow". That section on colour in the eye is explicitly circumspect; but this lead is not. It carelessly perpetuates endemic confusion about the three cone systems in humans.

Do better? (I will not edit. Retired years ago.)

114.72.76.18 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: – I agree with the anon (whom I know) that the article needs considerable work. What do you think of the suggestions, point by point? Tony (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tony1: There is very little that I disagree with in that post. They just aren't very helpful in trying to resolve the issue at hand which is development of a good first sentence. I asked all to read the earlier discussion because one theme that emerged was to avoid being overly complex or technical in the first sentence, and also to avoid wording that ruled out common (secondary) meanings of color. North8000 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I read all of the unarchived material above, North8000. And, in this new section I started, I have made several criticisms that mark with pinpoint accuracy some salient failings in the present lead. (See also what I post below.) Tony invited you to respond in detail to my detailed points. I note that you have not done so. People would do well to examine them carefully, accompanied by a close reading of WP:LEAD. 114.72.76.18 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@114.72.76.18: Quit the arrogant insulting crap. What more can I say about your previous details in your post than I agree with most of them. And pointing out the obvious that they are not proposing anything regarding the task of the moment which developing a first sentence. Send, quit crap of wrongly implying that I don't already know what is in WP:LEAD. Third quit the crap of implying that anyone disagreeing with you must be making a mistake of conflicting with Lead without providing even slightest support of that wrong accusation. North8000 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Insulting? Heh ☺! Look, I've made several very detailed contributions to the discussion. Waving a hand to suggest that you agree with most of them is not engaging. What do you disagree with, and why? Answering that might actually advance things. Rather than belittling my contributions here as "arrogant crap", you and others would do well to focus for a while on the content I offer. It may or may not be obvious to you, but I (like a few others here) know something in this area. And especially, as I think I amply demonstrate, I know about very accurate expression. That was missing in the lead, and it is desperately needed. As for WP:LEAD, I do not suggest that you have not read it. I simply advise everyone participating here to read it closely. Some have obviously not.

Finally, far from not addressing the first sentence (which you appear to think is the sole theme of this section I initiated), I presented a tentative new version of it for consideration (see my first post above):

"Color is an aspect of visual experience that depends primarily on the mix of wavelengths in light sensed by the eye."

Your critique of that revision? And of what I offer below?

114.72.76.18 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@114.72.76.18:I said what I had to say and have no desire to get into a tit-for-tat. I offer only one clarification in case you did not deliberately "miss" it. Which is that I was referring to a few specific comments of yours, not to your overall contributions. Despite your rough edges, I consider you to be a valuable participant here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, North8000. And I can see that you are a valuable contributor here, of course. I don't feel comfortable deploying rough edges on a talkpage, but it seemed to me that the discussion was just circling around and the damaged lead in this crucial article was not healing. So I charged in, telling it as I saw it. Let's hope we can leave all that behind and move forward and upward – paradoxically, from a base camp that was reached five years ago. 114.72.76.18 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 was very bad for this article, starting with this edit that threw primary colors in where they don't belong. I think we at least need to get back to behind that. I agree that the present lead is a joke; or worse. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a bunch of changes to the first two paragraphs. Happy to discuss the individual parts of that. I hope people will see it as a step in a good direction. The bit about the CIE and RGB and color names in the second paragraph made no sense at all; hopefully my rewrite is better, but I'm sure it can use work. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well done, Dicklyon. That certainly is better. But much remains to fix in this lead, as I'm sure you are aware.

I'd be focusing urgently on this myth-perpetuating text:

"The RGB color space for instance is a primary color space corresponding to human trichromacy and to the three cone cell types that respond to three bands of light: long wavelengths, peaking near 564–580 nm (red); medium-wavelength, peaking near 534–545 nm (green); and short-wavelength light, near 420–440 nm (blue)."

As you well know, and as the article itself makes clear for all to see in a chart, each of the three cone types responds over a broad range within the visible spectrum. The present wording is dismally misleading. It is neat, comfortable, and wrong to match primary colour terms with these three cone types. (The reasons are evident in the article, but are unfortunately muddied by the three coloured curves in the chart I mention. They should all be black. The horizontal axis needs a label, too.)

I propose this replacement text:

"The RGB color space for instance is a primary color space fitting well with human trichromacy, ultimately determined by the three cone cell types whose response curves are situated differently along the spectrum: long-wavelength (L) cones give their peak response to light stimuli around 564–580 nm; medium-wavelength (M) cones around 534–545 nm; and short-wavelength (S) cones around 420–440 nm. It is common, but seriously misleading, to label these three cone types red, green, and blue."

114.72.76.18 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the second paragraph of the lede belongs entirely in the body. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. Try such an edit and see if others agree. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary meanings to makes sure any definition doesn't rule out, ones that do not involve human or biological vision:

• Assigning names to / names assigned to specific wavelengths of light (e.g. red)
• Use of wavelengths of light in non-human imaging systems to differentiate or obtain information. E.G. color-imaging based computer vision and machine vision.

North8000 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're proposing. I took out a few things from the lead about non-human color; no objection to covering it, but not to complicating the lead with it. Many conventional definitions might appear to rule them out at first, in which case they can be re-introduced as extensions of the common definitions. Things like noise color are more like analogies than actual color. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: The only thing I was in essence proposing is seeking a broader definition for the first sentence which does not limit the meaning to human perception.North8000 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. and that's achieved in the five-year-old lead that is now restored, with its explicit qualification "in humans", treating them as a central example. That rules out nothing regarding non-humans:

"Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, blue, yellow, etc."

114.72.76.18 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that as the way to do it, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)