Talk:Green/Archive 3

=Topics from 2008=

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)
 * Although I can see where you're coming from, using two values feels a bit of a kludge. Following that logic, one may as well have red being defined as "800000-FF0000" (and the same with blue etc.). In the end, 00FF00 is the most consistent of course. It's unfortunate that current display technology (LCD or CRT) pollutes the green colour with some blue and a lot of red. One low-tech way to confirm this is to split the colours of a supposedly '100% green' screen using a prism or CD in a dark room (some CDs work better than others, and it's a good idea to stand well back or have a small green block on the screen bordered by black). Another way is to place a deep red filter in front of the 'green' screen to see how much red light is leaking through.
 * This may explain why the HTML spec prefers green to be defined as a darker shade. However, when Laser or OLED displays become commonplace, green saturation should be stronger (overall less pale), and 00FF00 will make more sense than ever.--Skytopia (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Colors are visual perceptions (see color vision), not lights of a particular wavelength. Any attempt to fit “green” into “hex values” is inevitably a kludge, and the question should be about utility to the article, not upholding some completely arbitrary standard of theoretical purity.  Nearly any “green” stimulus is made up of multiple wavelengths of light, so your notion of red light “leaking” into it is misguided.  #00FF00 is defined for our purposes in terms of sRGB, and has a reasonably precise technical definition, but declaring it to be our reference for “green” does not now, and will not ever, “make sense“. --jacobolus (t) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although almost any green stimulus in the real world is made from multiple wavelengths, they all surround the 'most green' wavelength. What is the most green wavelength in practise one might ask? One possible answer to that would be the wavelength that provides the largest gamut of colours when mixed with other wavelengths (once the eye has done all of its 'post processing'). So in this sense, there is a 'most green' colour. For example you can create the perception of yellow by mixing red and green. But try obtaining a deep green by mixing yellow and cyan alone (with additive mixing of light of course).


 * Extending this idea, the three most 'ideal' wavelengths for 'red'. 'green' and 'blue' would surely be the ones which produce the largest gamut of perceptible colours. TVs of course try to use these, but they have problems as I have already said (the green element is by far the weakest as it produces lots of red pollution). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skytopia (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 December 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)

Base it on sources. The two hex codes given for green are for the named colors "green" in the cited HTML and X11 sets of colors. In the case of Red and many other colors, they agree, so only one hex code is given. If there's another color set with standardized hex codes, we could consider that, but otherwise most of the discussion above is irrelevant to the question of what hex code(s) to give. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Green fireworks smoke or flares
11-Jan-2008: I saw no discussion about green fireworks, so (under "Green") 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)

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)

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"

Northern Ireland in green flags picture
In the flags picture, Greenflags.png, the whole of Ireland is highlighted as having a green flag. However, as you can see in the article about Northern Ireland's flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_flags_issue), the British Union flag is the only official flag of NI. The green, white and gold tricolour represents the Republic of Ireland only. Although this is really only a minor issue, for the sake of accuracy and political sensitivity I think this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.107.187 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct, Northern Ireland is part of the UK so has the union jack as it's flag. You are wrong however about the colour of the tri-colour, it is green, white and orange.BelieverNotALover (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales not on flag map
Another little correction related to one about Northern Ireland. Wales is not on the flag map and it's flag is white and green with a red dragon on it. While it is part of the UK and not a sovereign state, it is a country and does have an official flag Jedi Master Bra&#39;tac (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Currency?
Uh... the front of U.S. paper currency is predominantly in black ink. Only the back is in green, hence: "Greenbacks". Anyway, is this image really the best example of green (or even a good one)? I think this image should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.113.198 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be an example of green. It's supposed to be an example of a greenback, or dollar bill. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, first of all, is the article about "green" or "greenbacks"? At the very least, show the back of the bill, which is actually green, unlike the front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.33.34 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the front was just a green as the back. Wrad (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)