Talk:Web colors/Archive 1

Black/Key
For those learning the Cyan Magenta Yellow Key (CMYK) color scale, would it not be useful to provide at least a label on black that states it alternatively could be referred to as "key" in much the same way that "aqua" is referred to as cyan? If so, how would we go about editing the table on the page? I tried to do so but it's set up in a way that is not conducive to editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.10.178 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Color
Three reasons for spelling it "color" in the article: &mdash;Paul A 09:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) that's the way it's spelled in the article title
 * 2) that's the way it's spelled in HTML
 * 3) that's the way it's spelled in CSS


 * I'll grant you #1. But HTML attribute and CSS names are not to dictate spelling, that some of them resemble words is more an artifact of the fact they were created by (US English speaking) persons than an argument for or against any form of spelling. Personally I find color a detestable spelling corruption, but no need to get in an edit fight over this. If the article hadn't existed yet I'd have put it at 'Web colours'. &mdash;Jor 17:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The people who created it were not necessarily US English speaking. Indeed of the four editors of CSS2 their native languages were Norwegian, Dutch, UK English and US English. W3C specifications are however written in US-English as a matter of policy.


 * And #2 is just plain wrong. Tannin


 * In what way is it wrong? --Paul A 04:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh no. Not another Colour v Color debate... sigh Uncle Montezuma  12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, three years ago... ¦ Reisio 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeh...Uncle Montezuma  16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * lol Rocket000 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Aqua & Cyan
Has anyone noticed yet that aqua and cyan are listed as identical? (#00FFFF) Is that deliberate? Kim Bruning 08:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, "aqua" and "cyan" both refer to #00FFFF. --Paul A 04:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes "aqua" is the standard name (and the only one supported) in HTML3, HTML4 and CSS 1.0. "cyan" is the prefered name in usual colorimetry or in RGB monitor technologies and in the sRGB standard color space, it is added as an alias of "aqua" only in SVG 1.0 and CSS 3, but only for the full profile (but not in CSS 2.0 or 2.1, even though most browsers also recognize "cyan" (just like they also accept "grey" instead of the standard "gray", and "orange" for those browsers that are complying to CSS 2.1 where "orange" was added). You could also add the term "green" (of CRT monitors) which is "lime" in HTML3+ and CSS., or "magenta "(which is not standard in HTML/CSS)  that is a more recent aliaspermitted in CSS 3/SVG 1.0 (but since long in many browsers) of "fuchsia" (which was standardized very early in HTML4 (and used since even longer in browsers using the partially standardized HTML 3 version or previously non-standardized versions of HTML).
 * See the W3G documentation about CSS for the detail of CSS profiles and why you should not assume that browsers will support other color names than just the 16 standard colors of HTML4 (think about browsers with reduced profiles that are still fully compliant to the latest standard. For all colors other than the 16 standard ones, you should use numeric values :
 * either the "#rrggbb" or "#rgb" hex triplets, or the "rgb(r,g,b)" decimal notation (both notations living in the reliable sRGB color space)
 * or the standardized "hsl(h,s,l)" numeric notation (that lives in the HSL colorspace that is directly linked to the sRGB colorspace with a simple and fully reversible transform described by the W3C).
 * Don't use other color spaces in HTML or CSS, unless you know precisely for which device you are targetting the result (for example don't use the HSV colorspace which is not always fully reversible).
 * Note however that the term "cyan" is also defined quite differently in monitor technologies (notably in CRT), because it refers to the brightest combination of the "two" blue and "green" luminophores (and also because the "blackness" of the rest of the screen surface is defined differently), that may not necessarily have a pure color in the sRGB colorspace: CRT monitors are applyng some colorspace transforms to convert their sRGB input to the device colorspace, using CIE-based conversions. Note that digital TV uses also other colorspaces (which are different between PAL, SECAM and NTSC) in order to adapt to different transmission bandwidths (the frequency color channels that are transported over the main frequency carrier are distributed differently, but also the older CRT monitors and TV had different luminophores that do not match today the three standardized fundamental colors of the sRGB colorspace used now in numeric TV and video formats. "cyan" is considered equivalent to "aqua", only because it applies today to modern monitors that use technologies that are compliant now with the standardized sRGB colorspace. The same remark would also apply to "red", "yellow", "green", "blue",  which are different in the sRGB colorspace and in the physical screen surface of CRT displays. Note also that, even if CSS3 has now accepted the X11 color names, there is still some differences (the article speaks about the .Net difference (bug or feature?). verdy_p (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colors
The list of colors needs some values filled in by persons who know how to find out the RGB, CMYK and HSV values for various colors. Tuf-Kat 01:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

The RGB values are already given. CMYK depends on which set of inks, what sort of paper, etc. HSV is marginally useful as a visual selection mechanism but the actual numerical values are not especially useful.

Table
At Dutch wikipedia we worked hard on the color table. Maybe you like it too. The first column should be removed. Ellywa 05:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any actual color samples. Maybe where all the white space is on the right side, include a sample of the color?  I recommend 256-color GIF images to ensure that the color is seen on all browsers.  I see color bands only on my PocketPC browser.


 * The current article shows color samples directly with web colors (the hex digits are in colored boxes in at least some browsers). I think that is safer than using a GIF which may be subject to a different color management regime. Notinasnaid 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

007bond 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just implemented this table


 * After a false start, I have cross checked (with software, not by eye) against the names in the CSS specification. There were some corrections, which someone may wish to carry back to the original: Deleted duplicate Aquamarine, OrangeRed. Added missing Cyan, LightSalmon. I also restored the original case as used by the specification. Note that I have only checked the names for an exact match, not the color values at this stage. I wonder what to do about X11 Color Names (which is the same list except it is missing LightSalmon; only that isn't really the list of colors used by X11, it's the web subset). Notinasnaid 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you I  Lov  E Plankton 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I really like this table sorted by color groups. Thanks for adding it! :-) I am curious about something. Some of the "gradients" ("lightness" to darkness" ?) seem to be a bit discordant to me.  Do these groups follow an established sequence?  Would it be possible to re-sort some of them in a "smoother" intensity gradient?  I could "eyeball" it, but that would be rather subjective.  Thanks for your thoughts. Rfrisbietalk 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it comes to preferences, I'd like to see it in alphabetical order. By grouping it in this way aren't we getting into original research? Notinasnaid 07:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Editorial decisions about presentation style hardly seems like original research to me. I'm sure there are all sorts of chromatic progressions that are well established in the field of color analysis.  An alphabetical ordering seems to be about as arbitrary as it gets.  Anyway it was just a thought.  If it's that big a deal, I'll just reorder them for myself somewhere else. Rfrisbietalk 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How many colors?
Am I correct in believing there are exactly 16,777,216 different colors available on the web? If so, maybe we'd like to mention this arcane fact in the article. --Angr/undefined 30 June 2005 15:27 (UTC)

No, its incorrect. Its the number of different values in a system that uses 8 bits per color component. Of those, some wil appear indistinguishable and others will show severe banding. The Web allows arbitrary precision for color values, using the rgb(R%, G%, B%) syntax. Some devices have only 5 bits per component, and some have 10 or more. So, 16,777,216 is not a fundamental attribute of colors on the Web. --Nantonos 20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I added it. --Heron 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)


 * On a 24-bit (8 bits per component) display system, yes. Depending on how the monitor is set up, not all of those may be distinguishable; and some may show objectionable banding. There have been 10 bits per component (30 bit) display systems available for some time now. On mobile devices, 5 bits per component (15 bit) or 5-6-5 (16 bit) is common. Whether such systems are used to display "the Web" or to display some other content does not affect the number of colors available. --Nantonos 01:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I may be wrong, but notice the article says "It should be mentioned that all color values from #000000 - #FFFFFF (16,777,215 colors) are valid." Wouldn't that be incorrect, as 255³ = 16,581,375? Again, I know that I'm the one who's most likely wrong, and that someone would have noticed by now if the stated number of colors was incorrect, but I just wanted to ask. -- The M.P. 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, nevermind. That's not my question anymore. Now my question is, how could you even convert a color to decimal if it had more than 255 Red, Green, or Blue? 00 - FF is only 255 hex triplets. -- The M.P. 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh man. I am so sorry for wasting your time if you're reading this... I was stupid. I completely forgot that 00 - FF is actually 256 hex triplets. ugh... sorry. -- The M.P. 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Entry: Orangered
The color 'Orangered' is in the list twice. Should it be removed, or is it duplicated because it is part of both the orange section and the red section? --Topaz 06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Double Entry
Is it just me or are magenta and fuchsia supposed to have the same code?? The Fuchsia (color) article states that the code is #F400A1 (but it does mention magenta's hex triplet as well). Not sure what to do, so I'll leave it up to those who'd know better. --Dupz


 * It's correct as it is: both are defined as #FF00FF for the purpose of this article. The #FA00A1 in the colour box on the Fuchsia (color) page is just the code for the arbitrary shade of fuschia used in that box. --Zundark 16:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

2l6 vs 256
How many web safe colors are out there? 216 or 256? I'm trying to implement them on a jsp program but i'm not sure of what the exact number is. I am still not clear, ever after reading the article. It says that it's 216 because up to 20 colors are used by the operating system. Xhamlliku


 * There are 216 colors. In hexadecimal, any combination of 00,33,66,99,CC,FF produce a web safe color. I also notice the article states Lynda Weinman was the first to identify this palette. However, if you follow the link to her page, it says:

'Lynda Weinman is a leading author on web design and web graphics. She first publicized the "web-safe" color palette first discovered by Bruce Heavin.' Victor Engel 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (author of The Browser Safe Palette, http://the-light.com/netcol.html)

X11 Color Names
I believe we should add a link to X11 color names and develop that page instead of listing the colors here. X11 color names have more applications then web design and it doesn't make sense to duplicate the list, nor to REDIRECT "x11 color names" to this page. What do you think? Matveims 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the table of the X11 colors so that it was sorted in Alphabetical order. I also put it into 3 columns in stead of 2 because there is room for it, and to shorten the page. Does anyone know why this was edit was reverted? 007bond 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is easier for users to find a certian color when it is color coded, and much harder when it is alphabetical, and also your three colomns don't fit on a 800x600 moniter. I Lov  E Plankton 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That is fair enough. Another reccomendation: there is a table above that was completed in the dutch wikipedia that someone kindly copied across for us to use. Are we going to make use of this? 007bond 01:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would like to implement it I would not mind. I  Lov  E Plankton 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just implemented the above table. I'm surprised no did it before me, it's been up for ages.
 * I think people have just been lazy to remove the dutch names.
 * Upon looking at the actual X11 color names page, I found a similar table that had the RGB values included.
 * Having already took the time to delete dutch names, I'm not going to go through and add them in, but if someone else could that would be great

007bond 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently found the color code #DDCDFF in a template here in Wikipedia, but it is not listed in this article, or any other article I've found that lists X11 color names. By looking at it, it looks like a shade of purple, but I don't know the name. Could someone let me know in my talk page? Same goes for #FDFDFD, which looks like an off-white. Thanks. --JFred 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are 16 million color codes available, and only a few hundred names, so there is no particular reason to assume that these colors do have names at all. Notinasnaid 06:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Converting RGB to hexadecimal
The article mentions the Windows calculator converts RGB colors to hex. Would anyone object to mentioning that Apple computers since early 2004 were bundled with Art Directors Toolkit that performs RGB to Hexadecimal conversion?

http://www.code-line.com/software/applebundle4/ Dedwarmo 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I remedied this problem in what I hope is a cleaner way. Hardwick 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hex triplet is a six-digit, three-byte hexadecimal number, giving us 16 million colors.

It's a simple equation for a computer to compute this number and display it. If the computer is not sufficiently capable of displaying this many colors, the computer compensates and dithers the color or replaces the color.

Instead, use Web Safe colors as a guideline. For instance, say you are making a website with blue, photo-realistic toolbars. Compare the "blue" of your design to the "blues" available in the X11 color names list.

Then, select the closest matching blue and colorize your website to match. This will allow you to have a website with 16 million colors, while taking other computer's display capabilities into consideration.

Woah.
Hey, you guys rock. This is a pretty amazing page. Definitely must have been a piece of work to do. Keep up the good work. 69.160.0.227 00:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Undid change to make X11 colors "main article"
I undid a change which set up X11 colors as the main article. This is because that describes, well, the colors in X11, while this article describes the colors that the HTML/CSS standards refer to. These are not the same list, as reference 3 indicates. I have also updated the X11 colors article to reflect this ambiguity, since people may find it first and try to use it as a reference for web design. Notinasnaid 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Something is amiss with this section. If X11 color names, the article, is about a different topic than Web colors, the section, then the section is mislabeled.  I followed accepted wikistyle to note the reference to the main article with a well-accepted template.  Please change the name of this section to something that is more descriptive.  Also, please move the external link out of the section. It is poor style as well.  It should be cited as a reference. Rfrisbietalk 11:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is about a very closely related topic. But (a) it overlaps in a complex way, so that can't really be said to be the main article; this is equally the main article for that. (b) that article did not (and still does not) contain an equivalent alphabetical list. I hope my recent edits to X11 color names have made the differences clearer. Notinasnaid 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I still need to let the nuances soak in, but your edits help. Thanks! :-) However, because the topics are so similar yet different, I still recommend the section title be changed slightly to reflect the distinction with the article (a "section" is not an "article"), such as "X11 colors in the CSS3 specification."  Also, an external link does not belong in a section other than in something like References or External links.  It still needs to be moved. Rfrisbietalk 14:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links
I have removed a few external links and some have been reverted, so here is a proposal instead. I propose to remove the external link to List of web colors - "a more complete list". The reason for this is it just seems to be a collection of names of colors with RGB values; why is this one notable? The names used don't match HTML standards, and most don't seem to work in practice either. The page does not make this clear. Hence I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements for external links. Notinasnaid 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the edit summary asked "why are you removing references". I am not; references are a serious matter, and should only be removed if the relevant part of the article no longer exists, making the reference obsolete, or if a better reference is found. What I am removing is simply an external link. Notinasnaid 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've removed all the links except for "CSS2.1 Color Specification" which is more of a css specification and offers little more than is found here on web colors. I think a color chart with rgb codes would be a much better resource for web developers and the like.  css is not the web colors standard.  Im putting back two color charts.
 * I disagree. CSS and HTML are the only web color standards. But please continue the debate. Notinasnaid 09:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said "This is a complete list of the colors in a published specification. Please do not add new ones not in the specification." That is A specification. Not THE specification.  Web colors includes all RGB colors from #000000 - #FFFFFF not just those in the cascading style sheet specification, or the XML specification, or any specification in limited use.
 * Do you propose that this article list all of the 24 million possible colors, or just people's favourites? What is the benefit of including other colors, and what would your source be? In any case, the new color I removed was added to a section which specifically said, and was sourced, as the CSS color list: as such the removal was absolutely necessary, because the change meant Wikipedia was claiming the added color was part of the CSS list, and it wasn't. Notinasnaid 08:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No im not saying the article should list all 24m(Its 16.7m btw). Just maybe links to pages with more than the ~250 on the page, and the 17 in the css spec. This page only mentions "named" and "web safe" colors, which here in 2006 are of debatable value.


 * What is the benefit of including other colors, and what would your source be?


 * IMO Web Site designers finding this page would get just as much if not more use from charts with a few thousand web colors than a css spec with 17 colors. If this article is about the specifications of including colors in web pages it is just as much about the colors themselves.  Im not saying remove the css spec, I think they both have merit.  And so does the html spec.  You could even argue Flash and the like are web color specs.


 * the new color I removed was added to a section which specifically said, and was sourced, as the CSS color list: as such the removal was absolutely necessary, because the change meant Wikipedia was claiming the added color was part of the CSS list, and it wasn't.


 * I thought you were referring to the external links. my mistake


 * Removed links which aren't part of the specification.


 * The specification for web colors are all those from #000000-FFFFFF not just those with names. Youve already said your aware of this. "Do you propose that this article list all of the 24 million possible colors...."  This article is about web colors, not just the web color specifications.

Colors Named Correctly
Am I color blind? Because, the specific colors below just don't look right to me. Please refer to article and talk page.

Chocolate :: It seriously looks 'orange-ish' to me.

Brown :: Umm... I see more of a pinkish red and not Brown.

I came here looking for some color pattern's b/c I was trying to find Orange-Red which I did and was going over the other colors. Is it seriously just me or are the colors wrong?

lol! Hopefully someone get's back to me here soon :) Thanks! sid007 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Chocolate looks like a rather warm caramel. Brown is a rather mahogany kind of color. It's always possible someone could have tampered with the article, but I think it is right. You can always follow the reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-color-20010305#x11-color, which is the official specification of these colors; they look the same there. Always bear in mind, too, that colors won't look the same on all computers. When designing web pages you can't be sure what other people will see. Notinasnaid 08:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Light Salmon in X11
The X11 categories are nice -- Light Salmon belongs to 2 categories (Red and Orange). Is that a mistake or purposeful for a non-exclusive categorization?

Regards,

monte

{x:

MonteShaffer 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

256 Color chart
I don't know if this would be helpful or not but I developed a 256 color chart for my own use that shows the combined intensity of each color from 0 to 15 - with 15 being white(FF,FF,FF) and 14 being one value away in each of the main colors i.e. (CC,FF,FF); (FF,CC,FF); and (FF,FF,CC). It is available here - User:Trödel/Color chart (8-bit)  Trödel  17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reckon your chart – which looks like great work – ought to be available to users via at least a link from this page, if not on the page itself (I don't know whether or not it would qualify as a "Web colors" chart...?). If it isn't included on the page, please create Chart of 8-bit colors or the like; in the meantime, the current version is now linked in my reference area. Thanks for your work! David Kernow (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

the link to 'list of colors' was labeled as 'list of articles about color'... very different things. 12/16/06
 * They are indeed. And since it is a list of articles about color, I have reverted your change. Notinasnaid 11:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

About the 16 colors...
Shouldn't orange be one of the 16 colors? --James Maxx 10:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But then it would be 17! Apparently not, see under the heading "CSS colors". Notinasnaid 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow
Can any one make a rainbow? can they make a sig for me? the rain bow should be shades of blue. ♥Smartie960♥ (Chatter Box) 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * N o w w h y  w o u l d  y o u  w a n t  t o  d o  t h a t ? –Pomte 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How long did that take?! -PatPeter 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ΜΜΜΜṬṬṬ colors are different types of light being bendedcertian ways, white is light being unbended. colors appear when light is bended a certian way.

Reason for 216 colours used in anti phishing routines
I'd dispute the "widest possible palette where all colours are distinguishable from each other" idea on three counts:

1/ isn't it more likely it's to have maximum compatibility even with very old computers/browsers or simple equipment? (there's probably still a few people out there using WebTVs or early pentiums/late 486s to do internet shopping/update their myspaces etc - they've still got enough power but rather basic video systems)

2/ as a long time computer user i remember using systems with 512 and 4096 colour palettes, and you could certainly tell the difference between all or at least >90% of those shades if your monitor was set right; there's good reason we're not still using 12-bit colour! (it's fairly obvious even with 15/16 bit colour in the right circumstances)

3/ viewing the 216 colour scale on a dim laptop screen, some of the closest shades (e.g. red F00 and very-slightly-pink F03) are very hard to tell apart and I'm not convinced I'd be able to read any text written in one colour on the other (though an AI routine would have no trouble), so it's not foolproof anyhow! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Gotta agree with you on this, no idea who wrote it. It seems like the worst anti=phishing ever >.< Hintswen   Talk |  Contribs 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

256, 216, and 212 colors
Something should be said about 212 colors. Let me elaborate.


 * 256 is 28
 * 216 is 63 (allowing six bits per each of the three colors)
 * 212 is 216-4 (four colors which do not work with certain versions of MSIE)

Multiple sources have indicated that the 216 colors (which are handily six bits per color) were created to be compatible with Netscape 3 on both Macintosh and Windows and with MSIE on both Macintosh and Windows.
 * Not 6 bits per color (if it was, then yuu would have 26 colors, i.e. a palette of 64 colors only! but only 6 values (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15) per color component. As there are 3 color components, this means that it will create 6×6×6 color shades, i.e. 6³.
 * Anyway, this color cube is badly distributed: red and green components are given the same importance as green, despite green is the most visible one and contributing the most to total brightness. And using the 6 arbitrary values that were defined using a linear progression is stupid: it creates too many dark colors, but not enough light colors (so the various "whites" are all very tinted, and this makes the image more sensitive to different viewing environments or different rendering technologies (the white point of display screens, generally expressed as a temperature in kelvins). This defect is recognized in "16-bit" image formats or colordepths for raster images where the "green" component uses the extra bit to reach 6 bits alone, and 5 bits for red or for blue.

However, when version 4 of MSIE came out, it didn't display four of the "web safe colors" correctly: This is believed to affect versions 4.0 through 5.5.
 * 1) 0033FF (0,51,255),
 * 2) 00FF33 (0,255,51),
 * 3) 3300FF (51,0,255), and
 * 4) 33FF00 (51,255,0).


 * gimp.org reference
 * adobe.com reference
 * webmonkey.com reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.116.66 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

fuchsia and MediumOrchid look exactly the same colour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.76.180 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Amethyst?
Why is Amethyst included in this list? It does not appear in CSS3 Colours or SVG Colours. Nor does it appear in the list of colours from X11 that MS added to IE3. Richard (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. And browsers don't support that colour name at all, as far as I've tested it. Strangely, "amethyst" has been listed in the article for more than two years. I've already removed it. Gelo71 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys are missing a color- Ice Blue. I'd add it myself, but I have no idea where it goes in the table. And plus I'm an anon. Tyedye0126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.70.131 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that name doesn't exist in any standard specs as far as I know. I think the fact that you get a bluish colour in your message when you use the HTML tag &lt;font color="IceBlue"&gt; is simply due to some random colour assignment by the browser when it doesn't find a match for a colour name. For example, if you use &lt;font color="ThisColorDoesNotExist"&gt;, you also get some coloured text . Gelo71 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

Date of release of HTML and X11 colors inquiry
According to various Wikipedia articles I have read, it seems that the HTML color list and the X11 color list were both released at about the same time, that is, in the year 1987. Is that correct? If so, why was it deemed necessary to release two different color lists in the same year? Keraunos (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not really two completely separate lists. The X11 color list was basically a configuration file (rgb.txt) for [X Window System] that mapped terms to RGB values for display. The current major version of X, X11 was released in September 1987. And the values in the list where from the reference implementation. It was not unusual for the various unix vendors that shipped X11 as part of there OS to tweak the numbers in color list slightly to account for differences in displays. I'm pretty sure Sun (Xsun) was one of the companies that made such a tweak. Since the original web browsers ran under X, they used the colors defined of the X server they ran on. With HTML 3.2 (January 1997), 16 colors matching the 16 colors of the Color Graphics Adapter palette (which was still in use with VGA) were added to the standard. (Note the slight gamma shift for example #00AA00 vs #00800 for green and olive vs brown.) But the X11 names continued to be supported by most browsers. This is were the conflicts between the two list came into being. The colors were eventually standardized as part of the SVG standard (September 2001) and HTML/CSS3 (May 2003) . BTW for research like this reading the wikipedia articles themselves is not enough, it's best to go back to the source materials. PaleAqua (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When were the 16 HTML colors released for the very first time? Keraunos (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As part of HTML? I believe that would have been HTML3.2 (January 1997) unless I missed something, but they were based on colors supported by older graphic cards as I said. Similar list where present in other standards, for example ANSI escape codes or the colors supported by Dec VT240 / VT340. It's been to long and I can't remember what Tektronix displays supported. The 16 colors though were fairly consistant since normally there would be 1 bit per red, green, and blue channels and then a bit used to alter the intensity. (Hence RGBI). Though often small hardware tweaks were made, such as replacing dark yellow (olive in html) with a brown. PaleAqua (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

origin of hex triplet notation
The article should note that the hex triplet notation also comes from X11. 66.92.79.129 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Full range?
The article says:
 * “An abbreviated, three (hexadecimal) digit form is sometimes used. Expanding this form to the six-digit form is as simple as doubling each digit: 09C becomes 0099CC. This allows each color value to cover its full range from 00 to FF.”

I am thinking this is misleading. It does not cover the full range, it covers only sixteen distinct values from 00 to FF: 00, 11, 22 and so on. Would somebody mind to express that fact more carefully? My English is not good enough. -- sarang ♥ 사랑 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarang (talk • contribs)


 * IMO 16&times;16&times;16 &lt; 256&times;256&times;256 is clear enough. Here full range actually means 16 values in the full range from 0% to 100% (or something in this direction, presumably my DEnglish is worse ;-) –82.113.121.52 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation tag removed
The article correctly states that some browsers don't accept CSS-syntax #rgb instead of HTML-syntax #rrggbb for pure HTML purposes, i.e., old bgcolor=</tt> and <tt>color=</tt> attributes still permitted in transitional (X)HTML. No citation is needed for this important fact, because the abbreviated CSS-syntax is simply not specified for (X)HTML color attributes, and in fact I know at least one browser where say <tt>#89A</tt> has not the same effect as <tt>#8899AA</tt>. The opposite statement some browsers accept CSS-syntax also outside of CSS would require citations, because that's not obvious. I've removed the incorrect tag. -82.113.121.52 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggsetion for the color list
Pink-peach. (<font color= "FF6666">#FF6666) It is a color that I use often. Is that able to be added? Plesae respond here or here, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4myself4 (talk • contribs)‎ 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge not needed?
As Web colors and HTML color names talk about the same, just with the same word, but few words, It's pointless to have two separated section/article.

I've found that a merge tag was already put. But it was commented out later, stating that "Canceled as irrelevant" (but it's not irrelevant at all, see above), "Canceled with prejudice" (I can not get the point in doing something " with prejudice" at all!) and "talk section never linked or started justifying reworking these pages" (I think that the merging need was self-evident, anyhow I've explained here now and if somebody want so we can talk about).

Later (while I was writing this here) I've seen by chance that my edit had been reverted "". I can not understand how they could be "", as there are some difference between them (There are some -little- things in HTML color names that are not in Web colors, and -if I can remember right- the other way round too) and they are two separated section/article. --79.40.133.176 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * C'mon now - the table (which is about all there is) is identical, and there are a couple of other minor things that are mentioned elsewhere in the main article. If something has been missed, you can transfer the information. I was going to speedy delete as duplication, but I think a redirect works better. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

X11 color names
We need to be very careful with X11 color names. The article mentions the 'list of web "X11 colors" from the CSS3 specification'; but the CSS3 specification, which is found at http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/, has "X11" five times: once in the text; once as a reference within the text; once as the target for that reference; and twice in links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names

This could well be a violation of WP:CIRCULAR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is how you read the 'X11 color names' section. Noting it is a section of an article 'Web Colors', so the section 'X11 color names' is documenting the X11 in relation to Web, the thing that relates them is CSS, hence the list is the "X11 colors", ie in quotes, from the CSS spec. In other words the the list is the Web CSS list of colors which derived from X11. The CSS spec says "The table below provides a list of the X11 colors [X11COLORS] supported by popular browsers with the addition of gray/grey", emphasis on 'supported by', so it is CSS's list, not a definition of X11. So not circular. I think...

The article 'X11 color names' correctly defines them by reference to a X11 rgb.txt file which is the true (though unfortunately non-standardised ) source of names. Even the list there is not an accurate reflection of (a) rgb.txt file. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

rgb.txt v's CSS3
While it is just a comparison of two lists it may be original research so I'll stick it here for comment as to weather it is proper or worth adding to the article.

A typical rgb.txt file http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/rgb/rgb.txt?rev=1.2&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup v's CSS3 colours http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color

Apart from repeated colour variants, eg AntiqueWhite1..4, Grey1..99 the two lists are very similar.

Colour names in CSS not in RGB: Aqua, Crimson, Fuchsia, Indigo, Lime, Olive, Silver, Teal

Colour names in RGB not in CSS: LightGoldenrod, LightSlateBlue, NavyBlue, VioletRed

For posterity the decimal RGBs for the above are: Aqua			0	255	255 		= RGB Cyan & CSS Cyan Crimson			220	20	60 Fuchsia			255	0	255 		= RGB Magenta & CSS Magenta Indigo			75	0	130 Lime 			0	255	0 		= RGB Green Olive			128	128	0 Silver			192	192	192 		(almost identical to Grey/Gray) Teal 			0	128	128 LightGoldenrod	238	221	130 LightSlateBlue 	132	112	255 NavyBlue   		0	0	128		= CSS Navy VioletRed 		208	32	144 the others do not have equivalents

The article already mentions "Note that this includes the common synonyms: aqua (HTML4/CSS 1.0 standard name) and cyan (common sRGB name), magenta (common sRGB name) and fuchsia (HTML4/CSS 1.0 standard name), gray (HTML4/CSS 1.0 standard name) and grey" which is the authors observation of the two references.

So is it OK to list in the article, perhaps a footnote to the table, the differences, or is that original research?˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rebeccapurple
I believe that the addition of rebeccapurple to the CSS color space is notable, especially as it has been mentioned by several new sources and is one on only two colors that CSS has added beyond the HTML/X11 base set. I do not believe that rebeccapurple needs it's on article, but we should list all 141 of the web colors on this page. Currently we only list 140 of them. PaleAqua (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to be very careful when using W3C Editor's Drafts such as CSS Color Module Level 4 Editor’s Draft, 21 June 2014. They are a long way from being finalised, and some of them change quite often - perhaps every few days. Current W3C "standards" are those documents described as W3C Recommendation, such as CSS Color Module Level 3 W3C Recommendation 07 June 2011. Browser vendors that claim compliance with the latest standards should implement all the features of W3C Recommendation but are not obliged to provide anything that is only in a W3C Editor's Draft. The progress from W3C Editor's Draft to W3C Recommendation takes several years, and moves through several stages - W3C Editor's Draft → W3C Working Draft → W3C Candidate Recommendation → W3C Proposed Recommendation → W3C Recommendation, see lists at CSS Current Status. There is no set timetable for progression to the next stage, but stability tends to increase the further along it gets. Progression is not unidirectional, either: HTML 5 (which had moved from Working Draft to Candidate Recommendation on 17 December 2012) moved back from Candidate Recommendation to Working Draft on 17 June 2014 - just six days ago. At any stage, a document may become a W3C Working Group Note (formerly known as a W3C Note), which essentially means that all work has stopped and it will not be adopted as a standard. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was just the editors draft I might agree but we also have third party reports and votes. This is a notable event given how few colors the working group has added to their color list. Perhaps it might be better to note the vote and describe the plan to include as you are right it is only in the draft so far. PaleAqua (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW the current rgb.txt file ( which has not change in a long time ) has Orange listed and has a different set of missing colors than the ones here so we might need to fix that as well. The page on X11 colors even uses the HTML/CSS colors for its list instead of the X11 colors, such as listing the term as aqua instead of cyan. PaleAqua (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about X11 colors. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would not be the first time we had circular problems. I found another color list that got widely as a source used in the past was actually based off an old version of our list of colors article ( which I still don't think should be giving made up RBG values and apparently has now grown with some much OR that it got split in two ). I used to be more active on finding such issues, but have mostly given up. We had a lot of issues with sourcing on colors, and a lot of color articles where the implicit assumption is made that there is a one-to-one mapping between color terms and RBG coordinates. A lot of pages unfortunately treat the X11 color list, the CSS lists ( and similar list like the ones used for stamp collecting ) as defining the colors themselves, instead of just convenient mappings of terms to colors for particular systems. PaleAqua (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Grey vs. Gray
In this article, the names "gray" and "grey" are intermixed. "Grey" is typically British, and "gray" typically the American variant.

As seen at http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_colornames.asp, the HTML and CSS standards have the same color entries for both. This should be reflected in this article.

However, it is also worth noting that the page http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#color-units uses the spelling "gray" exclusively.

Klassica 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that style.color = 'grey' can cause a parse error on IE7 browsers - whether this is because IE is not standards-compliant or because 'gray' is the only one in the CSS21 standard is up for debate...

Shouldn't the "grey/gray" in X11 color names at least be consistent? Currently it lists LightGrey DarkGray

--Giddylake (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, IE 7 and older understand "lightgrey" for #D3D3D3 but reject "lightgray". Should this peculiarity be noted in the article? -- wr 79.224.125.105 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the article says the list includes "gray (HTML4/CSS 1.0 standard name) and grey." but it doesn't. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the two references and both spellings are included in both. I'm adding the missing ones. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Both show correctly in late versions of Firefox and IE. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

To whoever reverted my changes discussed above. I have reinstated them. As I stated the Grey versions are valid and exist in http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#ColorKeywords and http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color

Further X11 includes grey spelling as an alternative, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names and BTW w3 reference for X11 colours is to the wikipedia X11 color names page, all external links there also list both grey & gray. In summary W3 includes both grey & gray, W3 refer to the wikipedia X11 names, the X11 page lists both grey & gray, the Section Title is 'X11 color names' NOT somebody's view of what the names are. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my thread below regarding X11 color names. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Valid yes, but why use grey for just one instance, namely "lightgrey" and not for any of the others? Why the inconsistency? You already have a note that they can be both. Why not just make it "lightgray"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.7.247 (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply: If you look at the main X11 article, it says "Some browsers like Netscape Navigator insisted on an ‘a’ in any ‘Gray’ except for ‘Light Grey’.", so it is actually useful to show the difference, rather than just deciding for the 'look'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 September 2014‎

Still relevant? Preferred to refer to obsolete technology in lead?
"Web colors have an unambiguous colorimetric definition, sRGB, which relates the chromaticities of a particular phosphor set, a given transfer curve, adaptive whitepoint, and viewing conditions". "phosphor" (and other info?) there implies CRT monitor (only)? I assume the source mentiones "phosphor", and we can't replace the "phosphor" language with a language about LCD pixel technology (with no additional source) since it doesn't say anything about it? Still it applied to the three primary colors of CRTs but can we assume it translates exactly to newer technologies (LCD)? Maybe those are made to conform to the same exact standards (close enough).

Most monitors (and TVs) are no longer CRT (or plasma), at least in the west.., but this at least would be true of all mobile devices. Should we include a reference in the lead to an outdated technology (here or in general)? Which brings me to my last point, are web colors not relevant anymore? comp.arch (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"*F03*"
What do the asterisks around the hex number of some colors mean ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * They seem to be the ones included in the section Web colors. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition of code tags
The change to adding code tags is extremely hideous. However, accessibility does trump in most cases. I'm well aware of WCAG's guidelines as I have changed many a table for this and colorblind reason. Some things: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Bgwhite (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:ACCESSIBILITY states we should meet AA, not AAA
 * 2) The guidelines do not say black text against a white background.  It says there should be a good contrast between text and background (ie contrast ratio).  Black text on a light background is acceptable. White text on a dark background is acceptable.
 * 3) I like using WebAIM to analyze a site.  The site doesn't recognize the  tag.  Of the 216 boxes in the "color table" table, 30 had bad contrast ratios.  Almost all could be solved with black text.


 * After the same procedure was used on the List of Crayola Crayon colors, I thought I'd work on an alternative presentation or two, which I hope will be more attractive than the code tags, but still fairly accessible. However, I'd like some clarification on the arrangement of colors in this table, and specifically the various groups of colors.  Are the names and numbers of the groups fixed, and are they in a fixed order?  Are the colors in each group fixed, or could some colors be moved from one group to another?  For example, could Salmon or Coral be moved to pinks, OrangeRed to reds, or PeachPuff to oranges?  And is there a standard formula for ordering the colors in each group?  Right now it seems to be rather loosely organized from light to dark in each group, but there are a number of exceptions.  The more flexible the table's organization can be, the easier it will be to design an alternative.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Very good idea on making up alternative presentations. Actually, there is an order.   However, You might want to look at X11 color names and how they did the table.  I'm not a big fan of their table, but it is a different idea that works.  Do we need the X11 table here or just refer it to the main X11 color names? For the table "Color table"  There is also a pattern.  I also like the current table in the way it is easy to see how different color relates to the next.  Maybe two tables?  One sort of how it is now and one more list X11 or crayola article?  Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the table at X11 color names is simply in alphabetical order, which is easy for sorting but quite useless for color selection. The alternative table(s) I'm working on could be arranged in different orders, if necessary, but rather than beginning with "pink colors" and placing "brown colors" between yellow and green, I would suggest arranging them the way that I did in the Crayola lists: with pinks following from purples (since there's heavy overlap between them), and browns immediately following pinks, since browns are dark shades of reds, oranges, and yellows, rather than a narrow range between yellow and green (relatively few browns would actually fit in that part of the spectrum).  I would also recommend eliminating strict divisions between the groups and instead listing all of the colors by hue, excepting that colors recognized as "pinks", "browns", or "neutrals" would come at the end rather than being mixed in by strict order of hue, since A), most people distinguish them from other colors, and B) unlike the traditional primary and secondary colors, which would still form fairly discrete groups, pinks and browns would simply vanish as groups if incorporated by hue.  But, as I said, order and grouping is flexible and can be arranged in multiple ways with the same table format.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Some X 11 color names not supported in all browsers

 * Moved from WP:Village pump (technical). @Парис &#34;Анима&#34; надаль. --Pipetricker (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I suggest to leave in the section Web colors only colors, supported in all browsers. For example, code:

In Firefox, in Pale Moon. Pale Moon not supported color. Thanks.--Парис &#34;Анима&#34; надаль (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section says that "as of 2005 all modern general-use browsers support the full list of colors," but that color was added to CSS in 2014. As interesting and tragic a story as "rebeccablue" is, I don't think it belongs in the "X11 colors" section, since it is not shown in the sources and was not on the list of X11 colors that was adopted into CSS. Note that it is mentioned specifically in the "CSS colors" section farther down in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Except  in the section there are others the new added X11 colors? Thanks.--Парис &#34;Анима&#34; надаль (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Someone will have to compare the table with the sources cited in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On that matter, can we be sure that our sources aren't WP:CIRCULAR? See Talk:Web colors/Archive 1; another relevant archived thread is Talk:Web colors/Archive 1. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Color v. Colour
Most of the article, especially the content parts and the tables use "color." However, the section titles, beginning, and second/third sections use "colour." I standardized the page so that it only refers says "color." It appeared that the article was written mainly using "color" but an English person went through and changed them, of course I am not sure but it does not matter.

Wikipedia guidelines say that if an article is talking about something from a particular country, then the article should be written using the conventions of that country. Because most web-based technologies, including the technologies in this article, come from the United States I believe that guideline specifies "color" alone should be used.

It also seems stupid to use "colour" at all, given the page name itself uses "color" and with all the links to other wikipedia pages I found, the page names also used "color" but they were all masked with "colour." And besides, "colour" is not even a real word, whoever uses that must not have learned English correctly :P.


 * EDIT: I looked at the edit history, and mysteriously, the fourth or fifth edit before, (less than a week and a half before) and IP address changed all the "color"s to "colour"s.--ImVeryAwesome (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted spelling change per WP:ENGVAR. PaleAqua (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And self-reverted. Looking through history I see the original version of this article used colour. The page moves I found show some colour => color moves. Not seeing discussions that lead to the moves yet. Per ENGVAR it might be that this article should actually be moved back to Web colour. PaleAqua (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay completed sampling history. Looks like US spelling has been in use since approx. Feb 2005, which is enough to make it long term stable. PaleAqua (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Because most web-based technologies, including the technologies in this article, come from the United States..." um, didn't the Englishman Tim Berners-Lee invent the WWW whilst in CERN in Switzetland? "colour" is a perfectly fine word - it is "color" that is getting spelling-error flagged in my browser! 8-) Anyhow a consistent choice through out is needed so I guess the American English is as good as any. SlySven (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bronze color frquently used in sport pages
It's possible to chanche the result of color "bgcolor=bronze" in "bgcolor=cc9966", like this example? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? To change the way that the keyword  is interpreted? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen, look when I use the name of the medal in the code (first line):


 * Gold (bgcolor=gold)
 * Silver (bgcolor=silver)
 * Bronze (bgcolor=bronze)
 * Now unserstand what I mean? Wy only bronze code don't returns bronze color, but... I don't know what kind of color is. and we MUST to use code "cc9966" fore return bronze?--Kasper2006 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, you wish to change the way that the word  is interpreted as a colour. The conversion of color names to color values is done by the web browser, not by any MediaWiki process.
 * The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which mostly comprises the browser vendors (Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla and so on), have agreed on a set of color names, and the values to which they should be mapped by browsers. These are listed at [//www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color CSS Color Module Level 3 section 4.3. Extended color keywords] and which our article web colors describes. If you attempt to use a name that is not in the list (such as ), and therefore for which there is no defined mapping, different browsers will interpret it in various ways. Some will ignore it, and not set a colour at all; some will treat it as black, others as white. Some (like Opera) will try to interpret the name as a hexadecimal (hex) value: valid hex values comprise the digits 0-9 and the letters a-f, and in the word "bronze", the first and last letters are valid hex values, but the middle four are not and so are treated as zero. So   becomes   and so in the Opera browser, you get this colour:.
 * We simply cannot change these interpretations in any way at all. That is up to the browser vendors and the W3C. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that it would be a good idea if the W3C added "bronze" to the list, to be consistent with the existing "silver" and "gold". However, as already stated, it's up to the W3C. — Korax1214 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikia link in §X11 color names
I tried to add this to their "Help:Color" article, only for this to be reverted (twice) partly on the grounds of "self-promotion". To my mind this fails the use/mention distinction: although the article was written by me, it wasn't about me or mine; it was solely about the X11 colour list. If I were to write an article (solely) about Fermat's Last Theorem (not mentioning anything else whatsoever) and link to it on a mathematics article, would that link be "self-promotion"? it would according to the above-described Wikia "logic".

Hence I have posted it here instead, in the hope that it may be of use to somebody, even though it's not about the latest movie or whatever and thus no use to Wikia. — Korax1214 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Due to the above problem (I wouldn't be surprised if the page were deleted), I have copied it here (in my user space because I'm not sure it meets WP:NOTABLE); I hope this is allowed under WP policies. — Korax1214 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it again, see WP:ELNO; WP:ELNO; WP:ELNO; and WP:ELNO. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * EL5 in the above is invalid; the page is not selling anything, or promoting anything other than the efficient use of the X11 colour list. As for the others, the wording is "should not", not "must not"; it's a guideline, not a rule. The ultimate criterion should be that rare facility ironically named "common sense".


 * I for one find the article as it stands virtually useless as a colour picker, as it lacks important information (hue, saturation and gamma), and what there is has been divided into several lists instead of a unified list (and this has been done in a somewhat arbitrary manner; at least two of the "browns" are actually reds, strangely including "brown" itself; the rest of the browns could instead have been included with the oranges as brown is in effect dark orange, and "gold", although indeed a yellow, could also fit into the oranges as it's the colour also known as "gamboge"). — 90.217.74.237 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Blue gray
In English, so I can understand, please how many parts by parts do I need to make the colors blue gray. I have no idea what you are talking about. You have lost my. So if I can understand please how to make the right information to make it. Thank you please !!! Corsairf4u1 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I build model aircraft and I've been told that colors are different blue gray is actually gray blue or gray blue is actually blue gray I've seen photos that goes both ways some are grayish blue and some are bluish Gray and I just want to figure out how can I make just blue gray because some companies don't have that color and they don't know how to mix it or even know how what and when so can you please just please tell me the ratio to get that color by parts from 0 to 10 so I would know thank you very much for listening to me and I thank you from Ralph Corsairf4u1 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Web colors. I rather think you would be better off posting a question at the reference desk. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Burlywood or BurlyWood?
I like the design of the colour table grouping them by (is it) hue? I note that the obvious source material is SVG 1.1 Version of X11 Color names but that uses all lower case names whereas this table uses "upper camel case" however I think an error was made with Burlywood (and I subsequently noted Firebrick also) is one word. As this seems to be an included file and the page is also subject to some restrictions I'm not sure I can edit the table myself. SlySven (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The current official standard is [//www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/ CSS Color Module Level 3] which was approved as a W3C Recommendation on 7 June 2011. In that, [//www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#html4 section 4.1. Basic color keywords] lists sixteen colours in lowercase, and explicitly states "the color names are case-insensitive." It is unclear whether this case-insensitivity also applies to the colours named in [//www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color section 4.3. Extended color keywords], which also has all of the colour names in lowercase. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this and checked. "burlywood" and "firebrick" are single words in the X11 colour name database. They are not two word phrases, so using BurlyWood and FireBrick is not correct. The original X11 RGB database can be found in /usr/share/X11/rgb.txt on an Ubuntu Linux system. In that database, single word colour names (like "red" or "burlywood") are written in lower case. Two word colour names (like "sandy brown", "SandyBrown") are given two entries, one using lower case with a space, and one using CamelCase without a space. The X11_color_names article gets this correct, but the table in this Web colors article was incorrect. The table is now fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Focus
I'm finding this page confusing and disorganized.

zachaysan ( parley ) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Explaining how hex colours works seems like it deserves its own, small page.
 * 2) Many people want to quickly search for a named web colour they see online. This is frustrating right now because there are too many separate pages to search, and it isn't obvious on a quick scan of the intro paragraph. Further, some colours like "java" aren't included in the expanded list of colours.
 * 3) The focus on HTML 4 seems very outdated and distracting.

Missing Mention of VioletRed
Interestingly, VioletRed exists in the rgb.txt of both versions yet there is no mention as to why it's not included in the colour list or even omitted from CSS W3 specification? I can't seem to find an answer anywhere. Might be a good idea to add to this article. Grittenald (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Decimal RGB definition
In CSS, colours can also be defined as rgb(decimal,decimal,decimal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.234.43 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Faults on the "SVG_Recognized_color_keyword_names.svg"
"Seashell" (#FFF5EE) presents the wrong hex value, rendering the same as seagreen #2e8b57.

Note: 9 colours are listed duplicated, differing only by the names (aqua/cyan, fuchsia/magenta; darkslategray/darkslategrey, dimgray/dimgrey, slategray/slategrey, lightslategray/lightslategrey, gray/grey, darkgray/darkgrey, lightgray/lightgrey). These should be named side/side, not as separate items. Paulo Muffato (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Every color you can make
So we all know the colors right? Well there’s actually a lot more. You see, this is focusing on RGB, not any other one so if we add 255 + 255 + 255 (or 255 * 3) plus the black color, we get 766 RGB colors possible to make, now this may not be true but it’s a lot at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.198.132 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What? This doesn't make any sense at all. What are you even asking? If you want true RGB combinations then that will be 2563+1 combinations, or 16777217 unique combinations. Also there would be no point talking about 16 million combinations. Web safe means talking about specific colors that are used widely on the web. 2603:7000:E43F:9867:C086:EDD5:EC4C:C97B (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar at beginning of article is broken
For me, the sidebar at the top of the article is broken. Parts of the bar are missing the outline for whatever reason. The template's page does not show the broken borders so it has something to do with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E43F:9867:C086:EDD5:EC4C:C97B (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a conflict between and  - styles that are added by the latter are being imposed on the former. These seem to be the white border added by this rule:   That, in combination with the declaration   cause the white border to mask the black border of the sidebar, causing the visual gape. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it with . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just one question:
What absolute clown put Olive in the greens instead of the yellows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:FA36:9C00:950E:94DB:8793:1EFE (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Testing
Atomic putty? Rien! 19:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)