Talk:Blue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why the rainbow up top?

I think the page looked much better with the blue frog and the blue mushroom up top. The blueberries look orphaned sandwiched between color chips on the top and rainbow images below. The rainbow images have some EV, but they are not blue. The page looked better when all the pictures were blue.Shroomydan (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

can someone please remove the racist rant on the right panel? THANK YOU 71.192.163.168 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is water blue?

Why is water blue? --AxelBoldt — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 16 November 2001

Because of the tail of an absorption at around 750 nm absorbs the red. The absorption is an overtone of the O-H stretching vibration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBob (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 November 2001

Interestingly, heavy water (D2O) is colourless, because the absorption band is at a longer wavelength (~950 nm). -- DrBob — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 16 November 2001

I thought it was because the sky was blue and the water is just reflecting the colour of the sky. --Cap 11:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Despite some doubts over this, this source appears to confirm the absorption spectrum explanation http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#blue. I have added the link to the page under 'External links', reasoning that if we can discuss 'why water appears blue' in the article it seems appropriate to cite a reference 62.252.224.17 20:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) </Screws up degree in Theoretical Physics and throws it in the bin>

Water is tiny tiny tiny bit bluish. It is only when there is a lot of it ,e.g. in the ocean, when this bluishness is visible. --Dannyboy1209 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blue laws

"In German, "blue" means "drunk"."

Is it possible that this is connected to the origin of the term "blue laws"? I read something on encyclopedia.com about "blue paper they were written on," but that assertion seems asinine at best. A linguistic connection to German immegrants just feels more probable.--BlackGriffen

What are "blue laws"? Maybe they should be mentioned on the main article as well. --AxelBoldt

Good point. "Morals laws" governing alcohol, gambling, sexually-related materials, etc.

Agreed, Just about to post a note saying the same. =) --Navi555 (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

"the term most likely derived from an eighteenth-century usage of the word "blue" as a disparaging reference to something perceived as "rigidly moral" (a "bluenose," for example, is one who advocates a rigorous moral code"

http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/bluelaws.htm

Food for thought, --Alan D

Another example of that would be blue blood. I have to wonder about the etymology of the phrases, though.--BlackGriffen

---

I have always heard that blue laws got their name because they were initially published on blue paper. I think the German derivation is out, unless you know of any Germans who use the literal translation!JHK

There are only "blaue Briefe" (blue letters) in German. Those are unpleasant letters parents get from school. --Vulture

German stuff should not be here

In German, "blue" means "drunk".

Technical quibble: This is the English-language Wikipedia. German usage is not germane. (Is it really "blau" means drunk, or "blue" means drunk? If the latter, we have a case for including this in English-language Wikipedia.)

"blau" is drunk, not "blue"

I'm therefore removing the German-language info from Blue

I disagree. Blue is a cultural item in German culture meaning drunk. Blau is blue in German. (via Google Translate) Furthermore, such a reference is important, even in an English article. Otherwise there would be a lot of other cross-cultural references that would need to be removed as well.--Navi555 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue movie reference removed

-- Somebody earlier removed this from page (why?) -- the following may make more sense in response to this. --

A "Blue movie" is a slang term for a pornographic? film. The term derives from the poor colour balancing (due to cheap production techniques) used in films during the 1970s, resulting in a bluish tone to the skin of the performers.

I think this term goes back at least to the 1920's! OED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.191.188.xxx (talk • contribs) 11:45, 6 December 2001

Other references

Quoted directly from the OED blue adj:

" b. Intoxicated. slang (chiefly U.S.).

1818 M. L. WEEMS Drunkard's Looking Glass (ed. 6) 4 The patient goes by a variety of nicknames..such as boozy, groggy, blue, damp. 1860 [see sense 10]. 1945 BAKER Austral. Lang. ix. 166 A man who is drunk is said to be..blue."

" 9. colloq. a. Indecent, obscene. Cf. BLUE n. 14 and BLUENESS 4.

1864 HOTTEN Slang Dict. 78 Blue, said of talk that is smutty or indecent. 1935 Economist 16 Mar. 584/2 The songs sounded not vulgar exactly, but..`a bit on the blue side'. 1959 Spectator 14 Aug. 180/1 It meant that the theatre-going public were deprived of..outstanding contemporary plays, yet allowed to visit `blue' variety shows. 1965 Punch 2 June 799/1 He also wanted to see a blue movie."

From www.britannica.com blue law:

"The name may derive from Samuel A. Peters' General History of Connecticut (1781), which purported to list the stiff Sabbath regulations at New Haven, Conn.; the work was printed on blue paper. A more probable derivation is based on an 18th-century usage of the word blue meaning "rigidly moral" in a disparaging sense. S"

Now, considering that english is a Germanic language, and that the number of German immegrants was second only to the number of Irish, don't you find it more probable that the use came from the German term for drunk? There is, after all, a more than casual link between drunkenness and obscenity.--BlackGriffen

Proposal to end debate

Put the usage section on another page. How about here. Each color can have its own subpage of Color Talk. I bet you're green with envy that you didn't think of this first. I hope it doesn't make you see red though.

---

Re English language wiki -- I'm sorry, this is one of the most asinine things I've read. I'm generally one of the people who screams for English-language as the focus, but there should be absolutely NO objection to valid questions on (and uses of) etymology. Edit sensibly, please. JHK

---

I see that Red and Green also have colloquial usage sections. Perhaps that's why someone undid my move.

I'd rather see all the usage togther in one article; or, better links so someone could read each color-usage article. I'd hate to think I'm missing lavender or brown (gay and nazi?) connotations. Our language is so colorful, it deserves better than a piecemeal treatment. Ed Poor

Hemophilia

I'm cutting the mention of hemophilia; if someone has a reference to back it, please provide the cite. As far as I know, the gene for hemophilia got into European royalty with Queen Victoria, who is believed to have carried it due to a mutation. And who did a good job of marrying her many children and grandchildren into every royal house in Europe. Vicki Rosenzweig

Bluenose

I'm wondering if the use of the word "bluenose" to indicate someone who advocates rigorous moral standards could be related to the 1864 book by Robert M. Ballantyne called The Lifeboat, in which there is a Captain Bluenose. Seems the Captain was a "water-drinker" - said as if such a thing were bad.

Does anyone know how many song use the word blue in it?

"We all live in a blue submarine"...? --Ihope127 16:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

More info needed

We need a paragraph informing why blue is more comfortable for the human eye than other colors (some computer programs have configurable blue backgrounds (mostly text/program editors) to alleviate eye-fatigue). --Miles 17:05, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Blue = Male

does anyone know why blue is a symbol for maleness and pink is symbolic of femaleness? where does this come from? --Cap 01:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall that pink is associated with females due to the association of menstrual blood; over time, this was toned down until it reached the modern pink. I can't find anything right now that can corroborate that, however. As for blue, I have no idea. --David Breakey 00:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.oldwivestales.net/article1022.html might be a place to start checking, although I disagree that pink as an association for girls was just a marketing scheme. --David Breakey 01:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Google also seems to have something to say about this. You may also want to try the search I tried out. Have fun! There's a lot of potential material! So far, the only commonality is a lot of disagreement. --David Breakey 01:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Virgin Mary seems almost always to be depicted in blue, interestingly.

Blue is thought of as male because in old days, boys were considered more valueable than girls, and blue-colored oblects were expensive and blue was thought to scare away evil spirits. 66.205.108.8 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Spanish we have a colour called Purísima (lit. Very Pure) which is actually a kind of light blue associated with the Virgin Mary. 193.146.45.126 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

These are just inventions!

 

The particular blue that seems most commonly associated with the Virgin Mary is Ultramarine, which was made from lapis lazuli a long time ago and was very expensive. My source for this is Victoria Finlay's Color: A Natural History of the Palette, ISBN 0812971426.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In Russian, if someone is gay, they call them blue. i.e. He's a blue boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.216.210.2 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Victorian period, baby boys and girls were dressed alike until age two or so, but reformers thought this unacceptable. They devised a color-coding system for distinguishing gender. Blue, the color of patience and the Virgin Mary, was assigned for girls. Pink, a derivant of the aggressive, battle-like red, was assigned to boys. This system was used for a while (you can catch mention of it in books from that period), but after several years it was switched around, which is what we have today. — Emiellaiendiay 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of terms associated with the color blue

affection, aristocracy, calm, cleanliness, cold, communication, confidence, conservatism, depression, femininity, harmony, healing, hearing, honesty, ice, knowledge, life, listening, love, loyalty, morality, ocean, order, peace, philosophy, purity, quality, quiet, sadness, sea, security, sky, solitude, soothing, speech, spirituality, stability, technology, tranquility, trust, truth, unity, water, willpower, wisdom, youth

At least some of these should be merged into the article.

Well, come up with a reliable source and put them in.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Songs using the word blue

Must this be here, under music? There are very many songs which "use" the word blue. Unless people think that an extensive list of these songs is necessary on this page, I don't think it should be here. Another Loophole 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Section to make into its own article

I know this is a little premature, but I want to know which section should be put in an article of its own once the article gets over 32KB. Georgia guy 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the article has reached 32KB, I think it's about time to decide which section to do this with. Georgia guy 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's now over 32KB, and I still don't know what section should be made into its own article. Please try to find out before it gets to be at least 64KB. Georgia guy 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, it has reaced 40KB and still I don't know what the best section to make into its own article is. Anyone aware yet?? Please try to find a good section to make into its own article before the article reaches 50KB. Georgia guy 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable spam note removed from etymology section

I removed the following statement:

Blue is also the most spectacular running group with Bay Area Fit.

It was in a rather random place in etymology. It apparently has nothing to do with the etymology of the word, and seems like sneaky spam addition to me. Runa27 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

focus on the color

Just compare this article to the aricle on 'magenta'. Blue is a color and so is magenta. Why is there so less information on the color itself, its shades, CMYK values etc. Maybe there should be two articles. blue and blue_color. 'Color Wikiproject' team, follow up.... Charles.2345 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about blue

How come in a few foreign languages, blue and sky blue are given separate equally basic terms, while in English they are not?? Georgia guy 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong question. There's no reason why all languages should have the same set of basic colour terms. (In many languages blue and green are the same basic colour.) 91.105.13.48 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Connection with homosexualism

It should be added, that blue is often used as a symbol of homosexualism. For example, see Blue Oyster Bar. What do you think?

Purple?

Why are there shades of purple on this page being passed off as shades of blue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.68.88 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd been wondering the same myself. Of course, when it comes to colour groupings things aren't always black and white ... shades of grey abound ... or in this case shades of indigo. One should not be too surprised to find a few shades of purple in amongst what are supposed to be shades of blue. Different people will draw the line differently. What may look blue to one person may look purple to another. Indeed even to the individual the same colour will look different depending on such things as lighting and context. To see what I mean have a look at this.

• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  

Notice how purple that centre above band looks. Now compare that to the following.

Notice how blue that centre above band looks. You've probably guessed what I'm getting at. These are both the same colour: Hex:310062 (called "dark indigo" on this page). So there is to be expected some degree of overlap. It may make perfect sense to say that some shades of purple are also shades of blue. However, we've got to draw the line somewhere. Where it's drawn now seems far to reddish to me.

I'd say that we could probably keep the following shades.

• Periwinkle (Lavender Blue) (Pastel Indigo) (Hex: #CCCCFF) (RGB: 204, 204, 255)
• Bright Indigo (Crayola Indigo) (Hex: #4F69C6) (RGB: 79, 105, 198)
• Medium Slate Blue (web color) (Hex: #7B68EE) (RGB: 123, 104, 138)
• Persian Indigo (Hex: #32127A) (RGB: 50, 18, 122)
• Midnight Blue (web color) (Hex: #191970) (RGB: 25, 25, 112)

These ones would be borderline.

• Indigo (Electric Indigo) (Hex: #6600FF) (RGB: 102, 0, 255)
• Pigment Indigo (web color Indigo) (Hex: #4B0082) (RGB: 75, 0, 130)
• Dark Indigo (Hex: #310062) (RGB: 49, 0, 98)

But these ones seem far to reddish to me.

• Lavendula (Vietnamese Lavender) (Pale Indigo) (Hex: #E6E6FA) (RGB: 230, 230, 250)
• Deep Lavender (web color Medium Purple) (Hex: #9370DB) (RGB: 147, 112, 219)
• Lavender (Hex: #B57EDC) (RGB: 181, 126, 220)
• Deep Indigo (web color Blue-Violet) (Hex: #8A2BE2) (RGB: 138, 43, 226)

Jimp 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going ahead and removing lavendula, lavender, deep lavender & deep indigo. Jimp 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As the one who created the shades of blue color comparison chart I would like to say that I really like your chart that you created above showing how the color color Dark Indigo looks different when surrounded a bluish as opposed to a purplish color. I think it is very clever and informative. Best wishes, Keraunos 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous Information

Removed some of the section on blue earth river because it contains little to no information on the color blue and is simply a extended reference. I tried to make it more along the likes of the entry on the Nile river —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.101.130 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Carolina Blue

Can someone help me add Carolina Blue to the spectrum. It is Pantone 278. I am trying to put together an article on it as well. http://www.licensing.unc.edu/New/Stylesheet/WelcomeStylesheet.htm is the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopsphanatic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2007

What spectrum do you mean? It should not have a swatch with RGB colors, if that's what you mean, because Pantone colors aren't RGB. Notinasnaid 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reduction in the article?

Continuing the discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue in human culture, is there reason to include the environment and place name sections in this article as it's currently constituted? I don't see how they can add to anyone's understanding of "blue" as a concept or symbol. What's the significance of the facts that there are things called blueberries and that there's a blue parkway? Dekimasuよ! 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made various changes; I think it would also be helpful to discuss the rationale behind the ordering of the sections in the article. Dekimasuよ! 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Colour vs. Color

Relatively minor arguement, the article just switches back and forth ocassionaly.68.185.199.75 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should not switch back and forth - the original spelling has been established as the British or Commonwealth spelling, and per Wikipedia's rules about variations of English it should stay that way. Nihiltres 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed one color to colour in a main link. The other colors are in titles that should not be changed. Dicklyon 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Blue?

Which color is also known as "ice blue?" I was just wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Some shade of Cyan? Capuchin 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicken colors

In the "Symbolism: section, The chicken lady changed

When a dog or cat is described as having a "blue" coat...

to

When a dog, cat or chicken is described as having a "blue" coat

The change doesn't really sit well with me, but then, I'm a city girl and The chicken lady's user page doesn't make it look like she's here to vandalize. Anyone have a source?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that an image should be included of a blue dog or cat. May I suggest a Russian Blue? You're most likely to get a consistent color with such an animal. I see the section is crowded already with pictures, i just thought it would be a nice inclusion24.12.166.210 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Significance" section

Much of this is probably nonsense - I deleted one sentence that clearly was. Death does not turn a body blue; cold does. Someone who burns to death is not blue; that's a ridiculous statement. Moreover, it's not NPOV to call death "morbid". These statements of thought in this section need some kind of citation, or they're unsourced statements just like any other on Wikipedia, and need to be removed. XINOPH | TALK 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

The Dow company owns blue and this is a key part of blue's impact on society. Please do not remove this section. Feel free to alter the terminology to make it more legally correct. Please also navigate to the link to verify that Dow owns blue. This is an indisputable fact that should not be hidden from public eyes. I hope that the Dow company isn't the one trying to hide their ownership. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.120.71 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The link does not say that they own blue; it merely says that they've trademarked that particular blue color of a particular class of product. It just means that someone else can't make that product look confusingly similar. Not worth a mention, really, unless you can find an independent source discussing it. Dicklyon 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the words "The color Blue is a Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company" imply that they have a hold on blue, not just blue styrofoam. Considering this is an example of companies trying to own something that they have no place owning (a color or at least the words describing the color) this is definitely worth considering and it is definitely part of what blue is. The environment in which we perceive things may be legal, social, ethical, or whatever. In this case, they are using copyright law to make blue their own. I think it's definitely worth a mention, and, hopefully, some enhancement to correct the terminology...(no, it is not owned but others are restricted from calling things blue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.248.30 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the sort of thing people should discuss. A company swoops in and uses copyright laws, sits idly on the sidelines, and then uses this as corporate leverage as appropriate. Even attempting to own "blue" (or any other color) is a trick. These facts don't need hiding and they're certainly relevant when we think about what blue means to us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.248.30 (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So find a reliable source that talks about companies copyrighting colors, and report what it says. Dicklyon 15:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a reliable source talking about companies copyrighting colors...Dow's website. I did report what it says. A friend of mine found that originally by searching through Dow company specifications and pointed out the webpage to me. It is verifiable, my factual sentence is NPOV, and it is directly-related to the page it is on. You want me to find someone talking about it...why? Does a journalist need to comment on this fact to make it true? No. Leaving it out there will help the Wikipedia community by providing a stub for members of the community to correct or enhance. Taking it out because it isn't in a NYTimes article is shortsighted. Please leave this section intact. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.120.71 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to re-read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. You reported something about ownership, which was not mentioned on the page you linked. As to the idea of trademarking a color, you can read about it in, of all places, wikipeida: Colour trademark. Dicklyon 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Colour Trademark page. I just wanted this fact to be available to the community and I think that will do the trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.120.71 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know it was there, either. But googling for color trademark found it. Dicklyon 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek?

I can't find the interlanguage link to the Greek page. The BOT hasn't picked this up yet either. Any ideas? Bruxism (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

I've noticed this page gets a lot of vandalism... can we get this protected? DaRkAgE7 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also green, orange and blue

Under the etymology section after talking about the proto-germanic origin it said: "It can also be green or orange occasionally (blue). " which I couldn't understand at all particularly "occaisionally (blue)". I think this was meant to imply that Bla could be used for other colours, but as it was unclear which, I put: "but it can refer to other colours".

If anyone knows the origin of this text perhaps they could amend appropriately. Bugsy (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadness?

Are there languages other then English in which blue is associated with sadness? There should of course be a paragraph about this meaning of the word, and there is. But it's also mentioned in the box to the right, under 'Commonly represents'. That seems a more internationally oriented part to me, like what you find on a map. Thus I'm not so certain it should be there. Calamarain (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed sadness from the box, and made it apply to the English language elsewhere.Calamarain (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Blue Jay

The picture here, labeled "a blue jay" is not in fact a Blue Jay but rather a Western Scrub-jay. I suppose the label might have been meant simply to mean a jay which is blue, but still this is misleading, given the commonness of the term "blue jay" for the specific bird and the uncommonness of referring to jays in general (with or without another adjective). I'm not sure whether it is better to change the label or the picture. The western scrub-jay is certainly blue, but a blue jay has the added advantage of having the word "blue" in it's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjs (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a picture of a Blue Jay. William Avery (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sky

I can't edit this page -- link blue sky text to Diffuse sky radiation? 87.194.198.122 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Screens of death

Should this associated with BSoD ? Junkcops (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Variations

What about #0000FF? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Are we sure about this etymology? There is a word in Anglo-Saxon, 'blau', that seems to me to be the more direct antecedent. Perhaps 'blau' was borrowed over from the Old French, but it definitely went through Old English first. Leoniceno (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the boundaries of blue in UK/USA

The CIE 1960 UCS, also known as the MacAdam (u,v) chromaticity diagram.

Is there an accepted boundary to the blues on this diagram (includes cyan & indigo?) ? Rod57 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Royality?

Is not purple the color of royality as opposed to blue?

Nantucketnoon (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

happiness

in other countries blue is associated with happiness

like using the term "tudo azul" = "everything is blue" means everything's okay 189.27.167.173 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sociology

The working class section gets off the subject a bit, and the section ought to also mention "blue collar workers" as opposed to "white collar" 24.12.166.210 (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Other additions

A couple of things that I think could be added: "Baby blues" - this term comes from the fact that most Caucasian babies are born with blue eyes. In the first year of life, this frequently changes as pigment develops in the eyes. "Principe azzurro" - in Italian, "Prince Charming" (as a general concept of "man of one's dreams") is known as "Principe Azzurro" or "Prince Blue" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.90.209 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran 9th

Japan 15th

Portugal 9th

Dark blue (Kon iro) yukata - Japan 17th

Blue thoughout civilisations

I once read an excellent book about art and colours though history... but I forgot the name. In short this is what it said about blue:

Because blue was so hard to make compared to other colours, it became a way to show ones cultural level. (Long lasting blues are generally made using semi-precious minerals like cobalt or lapis lazuli. Vegetal blue was one of hardest to create: red and yellow are fairly easy produces using plants or common minerals. Note that most blue flowers generally produce a red dye.)
If you look at art toughout history, you'll notice that blue is predominant, or becomes predominant thought out the centuries: In China, Japan, India, Greece and Muslim nations you can find many typical blue and white creations. Europe started a bit later, in France, after a period of criticising foreigners, blue becomes a divine colour (hence the term Bleu Royal ) (ref. french article).
There are also stories about how the creation of colours, generally blue, were kept secret, and that blue cloth was offered as a gift between countries dignitaries.

I think it would be good to mention how blue was considered a special colour but I don't have any reliable reference to show. If you know anything about this or find any reference to this subject, please leave a comment - thank you - Cy21 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

I don't like the line "If this were untrue there would obviously be more complaints about days with clear blue skies." I think the paragraph would be better (and wouldn't lose any information) if the line were deleted. But I can't do it myself, protected article and all that. Does "Blue" really get vandalised more than other articles? 131.111.186.95 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reflex blue

what is the color code for reflex blue? I am not in the office today and have no access to my files. HELP please :) CSTchick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.182.114 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure anyone here is likely to know the answer to that. Try asking over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. –jacobolus (t) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit silly.....

"Dark blue is a shade of blue. The name comes from the word "Dark" (which originated from Old English dark, derk, deork; Anglo-Saxon dearc, and Gaelic and Irish dorch, dorcha) and "Blue" (taken from French and originated from the Indo-European root bhlewos)." The etymology of "dark" is not relevant to this page (maybe there could be a link to the page for dark if anyone really wants to know) and the etymology of "blue" is given in much more detail elsewhere on the page. 91.107.158.88 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of this article is a silly disorganized list of trivia. If you (or someone else) wants to undertake a clean-up, as Wrad did with green, it would be most appreciated. –jacobolus (t) 01:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Six Thinking Hats

In Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats a blue hat represents the big picture.

Could this fact be added to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.248.85 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports and Blue

Me again! No one's watching this page... Could we have a sports section. For British people, blue is associated with the football team of Chelsea and the rowing teams of Oxford (light blue) and Cambridge (dark blue). Obviously other countries have blue in their sports colors/colours. 78.148.62.8 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Navi555, 11 November 2010

{{tl}edit semi-protected}} In the Political section, it may be helpful to add information on Blue Laws, which is a law that is on the books for religious reasons, and Democrats, which are traditionally referred to as being blue, as in a "blue state" is a Democrat stronghold.

edit - wow that was quick, TYVM! I might add that we might want to also reference a Blue Dog Democrat as a conservative Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navi555 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Navi555 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: 1st part added as "* A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States and Canada, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping. The word blue was used in the 17th century as a disparaging reference to rigid moral codes and those who observed them, particularly in blue-stocking, a reference to Oliver Cromwell's supporters in the parliament of 1653." 2nd part is already there.   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Color

I'm not able to edit this semi-protected article, so could someone please move the following line out of the Politics section to somewhere more relevant and amend the spelling to the BE version: "Blue is also the color of a subway line in Boston that connects Downtown Boston with East Boston and Revere." Or it could be deleted entirely as I'm not sure exactly where else in the piece it should go! --Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed as it's nothing to do with politics.--hydeblake (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The sky and water are often blue

The sky and water are often blue.

I wrote this on Sroc's talk page, but I'll add it here in case anyone else has thoughts on this one way or the other:

I had changed the caption to say that water and the sky are often blue, rather than appear blue (which Sroc has just changed back).

Here's why I'm changing it back to say "are" again:

• according to most of what I've read on the colour of water, water is actually blue. A different mechanism to the usual, but blue nevertheless.
• the sky appears blue most of the time (not sunsets or sunrises so much) because it bounces the 'blue' wavelengths sideways. But just because the colour is caused by the selective redirecting of some wavelengths, rather than by absorption or emission it doesn't mean it's not just as real. When something appears a colour it "is" that colour. Colour is only in appearance, and yet in normal parlance we say "the light is green", "the cup is red". As in the question "why is the sky blue?" So in my opinion we should keep it simple. --Annielogue (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue [Da Ba Dee]

Should this song be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.62.74 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. 86.181.137.52 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical maps

I would like it to be mentioned that on American/Western warfare maps the blue and red arrows usually represent good and bad guys respectively. — Hellerick (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source that says so, feel free to add that fact to the article. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what kind of source do you expect. A manual for map-drawers or something? Or just bunch of maps where it's done this way? I have maps where:

• (The Spanish Armada) English fleet is blue; Spanish fleet is red
• (American revolution) Colonial troops are blue; British troops are red.
• (American civil war) Union forces are blue; Confederate forces are red.
• (Franco-Prussian war) French forces are blue; Prussians are red.
• (World War I, several maps) Allied forces, French, Italians are blue; Central Powers, German forces are red.
• (World War II, several maps) Allied forces are blue; Axis forces, Japanese are red.
• (Korean War) UN forces are blue; Communist forces are red.

Americans use blue for themselves, their ancestors, and their allies. I understand that it looks too much like original research, but still I believe it should be added. After all, this is important information: color use on maps may imply POV, and should be avoided when necessary.

We here in Russia have different color scheme: reds are good, blacks and blues are bad, mauves are half-good (like western allies in WWII), greens are the third side. Just looking on the map you could guess who's side of the conflict was supported by official Soviet historians; the rule worked for all the epochs including the Ancient World, and the Middle Ages. — Hellerick (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you infer it from a bunch of maps drawn that way, it's called original research (see WP:OR); we need a WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be added. See blue on blue for example. Note that anonymous opposing forces are often orange to discourage an assumption that exercises are directed at a particular country associated with red, such as "red" China or the USSR. Laguna CA (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.202.49.54, 29 September 2011

Add Québec to nation/state with blue and white flags

24.202.49.54 (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I read this it is just showing the Nations with blue/white flags which Quebec is not one of. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

I was hoping you could add Poseidon Blue as one of the shades of blue please. I have 4 children, each named after a shade of blue, the older three are included on your page but my youngest is not; Poseidon. It took us a long time to find his name, having three already of the blue theme we could not have one who was not. I would greatly appreciate it if you could add it, and it would mean the world to my kids. Thank you for your time. Reference Page: http://www.paintscratch.com/touch_up_paint/Chevrolet/2007-Chevrolet-Captiva-Poseidon-Blue-Effect-Clearcoat-47U-WA434N.html Also in the Exterior Colours section: http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/cars/captiva/features-and-specs.html S311pollux (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Where would this go? There is no section for "lists of commercially named shades of blue". I think you've named your son after a piece of marketing rather than an actual color. — Bility (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revisions ot America-centric sport section

I have revised the America-centric Sport section. Please can an admin read it and remove the tag if necessary Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

_hick 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No request--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong translation of the Islamic verse

Can someone change the part for Islam? the correct way to interpret that surah would be "blind eyed" not blue eyed. its not to denote "fear" but to denote blindness, the sentence should be taken out since the reference to the surah is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.78.181 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 December 2009

I capitalized "Islamic" and "Islam". --FeralOink (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish culture

Add to the Judaism section that the Israeli flag was chosen to be (white and) blue because of the tzitzit/tekhelet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Israel#Origin_of_the_flag) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.153.13 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Err...Color?

Uh, this article has both spellings of the word "color", almost right above each other. AND I QUOTE, with British spellings in italic, and American in bold:

"The English language commonly uses "blue" to refer to any colour from navy blue to cyan. The complementary colour of blue in color science is yellow (on the HSV color wheel), while in art the complementary color to blue is considered to be orange (based on the Munsell color wheel)."

Could someone fix this? (Preferably with spellings commonly accepted on both sides of the Atlantic, if possible...)

209.180.232.189 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a spelling that pleases everyone, but the rule for an article like this is to keep the kind of spelling which was first used (where it was possible to tell), and to treat every change between "US" and "UK" spelling after that as mischief, and every new text that uses the "wrong" one as something to be corrected. Looking over the history, it has gone through phases.

So...the very first entry is here. It uses colour, which is what the article mostly uses today.

I've begun correcting it, but it's a laborious process, since each link needs to be carefully kept working, and some things (e.g. quotes, names of organisations) are not to be changed. After a while I lost the will to live, but I've done a bit. Notinasnaid 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an overwhelmingly American used site. Use American English, not that British junk. It is "color," not COLOUR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.252.71 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; a most insightful comment you've graced us with...--82.109.59.130 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There should really be a British English wikipedia to prevent this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.8.48 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake - Association football

1. In the first line of the Association football section, there is "A notbale exception".
2. The second paragraph has "include six-times winners Boca Juniors". The plural should (and is) on winners, so it should be "six-time winners".

Could someone please correct these? Thanks - 82.109.59.130 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a little consistency too much to ask for?

The correct form for using spelling variations (British English versus American English and so on...) is to use the form first that is spoken by the majority of people using the site. Variations on the spelling are then listed afterwards, with citations indicating the cultural origin. Regardless of whichever spelling is chosen, Wikipedia needs to adopt a specific policy of formatting that keeps it the same throughout every entry. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to put into practice. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please either add new comments at the end, or append them to existing discussion on the same topic: don't start a new section near the top.

Wikipedia has a policy WP:ENGVAR, which says to use either form first unless the article is particularly associated with one part of the English-speaking world, and to use the same spelling thereafter in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has adopted a specific policy that is all about consistency within an article and is not difficult to put in practice. WP:ENGVAR. See ColinFine's description above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive bloat

This big article has more than doubled in size in the last few days, without any discussion, until the attention of one editor and only a little review and pushback. Are we sure that massive amount of new stuff is helpful to the article? Is the new lead better than the old? Is all this history and stuff germane? I don't have time to review it much. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look, but it looks like good stuff to me, except that it is somewhat underreferenced and I wonder therefore if some of it might be original research or synthesis. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wave painting

A famous print, The Great Wave off Kanagawa, by Hokusai is used as an illustration, but the caption refers to Hiroshige. I've no idea about the claims made regarding use of Prussian blue in Japan, and I have no access to the French reference given in the article text. William Avery (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

When reading this article, I noticed that the lead seems a bit different from what seems to be the standard with leads for color articles. Contrast, for example, Blue is the colour of the clear sky and the deep sea and Yellow is the color evoked by light that stimulates both the L and M (long and medium wavelength) cone cells of the retina about equally, with no significant stimulation of the S (short-wavelength) cone cells. I have absolutely no problem with the current lead, but am just wondering if there is some sort of standard that this lead should adhere to. dci | TALK 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "blaues Auge"

"In German, to give someone a blue eye (blaues auge) is to look at them with anger or hostility." As a native speaker of German, I have never heard of this usage. The term "blaues Auge" is what we call a "black eye", and if you give (or "verpasst") someone a "blaues Auge", you hit em in a way that causes a black eye. The other meanings (to be "blau" = to be drunk; "blauäugig" (blue-eyed) = naïve) are correct though. Unless someone else gives an example of this usage (maybe it really exists in some dialect), this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.120.83 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem: The German government outlawed the use of indigo in 1577??

There was no German government in 1577, because Germany didn't exist (as a country). Although a source has been cited directly, the source contains wrong information. The section on institutions in the article about the Holy Roman Empire reads as follows: The Holy Roman Empire was not a highly centralized state like most countries today. Instead, it was divided into dozens—eventually hundreds—of individual entities governed by kings, dukes, counts, bishops, abbots and other rulers, collectively known as princes. There were also some areas ruled directly by the Emperor. At no time could the Emperor simply issue decrees and govern autonomously over the Empire. His power was severely restricted by the various local leaders. Conclusion: The source probably refers to the Holy Roman Empire, wich had no government, but an Emperor. Even the Emperor couldn't "outlaw" the use of indigo, because of the decentralised nature of the Empire and refering to him as the "German government" is also highly questionable. I'd appreciate it being fixed or removed.Johnny2323 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Typo in "Blue Suit"

After "George Washington," should be "whose" rather than "who." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.142.212 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reatlas (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wavelengths and "The optics of blue"

There are errors in the description of our perception of blue. The article states, "The blues with a higher wavelength gradually look more violet, while those with a lower wavelength gradually appear more green." This is both inaccurate and a poor way of describing it. Wavelengths are not "high" or "low." Wavelengths are lengths, so they are "long" or "short."

The article should read: Shorter wavelengths of blue appear slightly violet; longer wavelengths of blue appear slightly green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.193.154 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reatlas (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more Than Feelings

Jhn parkinson created the colour blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.60.92 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Blue (color) / See Peach (color). On the Article page, the upper right quadrant color is known as aqua: it it not blue. We should really talk about these things, especially changing the Blue color to a {Blue (color)} article since the main disambiguation to the word Blue means somberly. This goes for Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Purple, Brown, Black, ad White as well. This is already true for the color Peach. (As we all know, there are only ten colors) In reference, in doing so, the search word generation for such diminutives would increase as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) --#+3B 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not the same reason

The article correctly explains why the sky is blue:

When sunlight passes through the atmosphere, the blue wavelengths are scattered more widely by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, and more blue comes to our eyes.

But then it goes on to say:

The sea is seen as blue for largely the same reason: the water absorbs the longer wavelengths of red and reflects and scatters the blue, which comes to the eye of the viewer.

This is not the same reason: it is a different reason. The atmosphere is not blue; that is, it does not absorb red light. We see the sky as blue only because of the preferential scattering of blue light. The sea, on the other hand, is blue because—even though the color isn't strong enough to see in a small sample like a drinking glass or bathtub—water is blue.

Please correct this misleading wording and link to the "color of water" article, as I just did here. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong party color and inconsistent naming

The article also says:

In Québec Province of Canada, the Blues are those who support sovereignty for Quebec, as opposed to the Federalists. It is the colour of the Parti québécois and the Parti libéral du Québec.

First, if you're going to name Quebec in French (Québec), you should do it consistently within the sentence.

Second, "Quebec Province" is not standard usage; it should be "the Canadian province of Quebec" or "the province of Quebec, Canada," or simply "Quebec, Canada,". Or Québec if you like, but in any case, With links, please.

Third, "sovereignty for Quebec" should also be a link, linking to Quebec sovereignty movement, and political parties should also be linked.

Fourth and most important, the Quebec Liberal Party should not be mentioned here. It's the principal party opposing sovereignty for Quebec, and according to their linked article, the party's color is red.

--50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Prussian blue

The link to Prussian blue currently goes to the chemical, not the color. Is there no article on the color?? KDS4444^Talk 08:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I Despise British Writing

People spell Color wrong! Color!!! How do people spell it wrong!!!!! It's color! How simple!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.227.202 (talk • contribs)

"British Writing"? Don't you mean spelling, rahter than writing?--82.109.59.130 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts both spellings. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the English would probably insist that we're using the wrong spellings.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The English were around first. The language is named after them. It's their language, and therefore colour should be the correct spelling. Amenojin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Colour, Color, who cares? They are the same word, and everyone knows that they are interchangable. No use fueling a pointless flame. DaRkAgE7 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither British English nor American English was here first. They both evolved from a common earlier form of the language, splitting off when colonists in American began to diverge culturally. British English is not necessarily even closer to the earlier form; in many cases American English remained unchanged where British English changed. Not to feed the trolls, but to point out another reason this is stupid thing to argue about. --Ericjs (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Random question, but is it impossible for some American to read a British spelling or vice versa? It really doesn't mater how its spelled, It means the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navi555 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and WP:ENGVAR backs us both up on that), although I do find it mildly annoying when the spellings switch between the two varieties in the same article. If it starts out in one form then I'm in full agreement that is should stay in that form. Just to point out that although I'm British and speak (and write) in British English, I do like a lot of American English spellings (color and flavor, for example) and wish we could follow the same path--82.109.59.130 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia article for color is color. Colour redirects to color. Shouldn't it correctly link to color? --Thevdude (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How big should the lead section be and what should be in it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two of us have a difference of opinion on the size and contents of the lead of this article. SiefkinDR thinks a shorter lead like this, while I have an idea more like this. Can folks please comment on their preferred length, with some notes on what else they might like in the lead, or what else can be removed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadly support longer version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (obviously)
2. Support Lead should be three or four paragraphs ideally. But not more. 4 sentences is not sufficient for most topics. It should provide a decent stand alone summary. Something that if translated into another language would be decently useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:LEADLENGTH, for an article beyond 30K in length, a longer lead length of three to four paragraphs is appropriate. This article is 111K in length. Neither lead adequately summarizes the article, but this is a challenge in such a wide ranging subject. --Mark viking (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support also this was discussed semi-recently at the talk page of several of the other color articles, so I'm sort of surprised to see the short versions there again as I thought concensus went the other direction. PaleAqua (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support I think the longer version should be rewritten as per the comments in the Discussion section below. There's just not enough room in a 'short' lead to represent such a large topic.  DiscantX 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Support. The short lead is too short. I agree with Mark Viking that WP:LEADLENGTH is an issue here. You just can't summarize the entirety of a decent article in so few words. The discussion comments do seem to have some useful input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Historically the precedent has been for Wikipedia articles to have about 4 paragraphs in the lede. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lede_Improvement_Team#Ledes_of_medical_articles I give an example of how people in WikiProject Medicine use ledes. In my opinion, the lede should be a summary replacement for the entire article, and contain enough information to allow a person to engage in a conversation on the subject as the article presents it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Broadly support shorter version (if so, with what additions/subtractions)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I support the shorter version, for these reasons:

The format of the short version is currently used in most color articles, including red, yellow, white, black, gray, orange, brown, and violet. I think that this article should follow the same format as the other color articles.

Following this common format, the first sentence gives-the chief characteristics and most common occurrences, per the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources; "Blue is the colour of the deep sea and the clear sky". The second sentence or short paragraph describes the optical qualities; wavelength, place in different color systems) and the third paragraph gives the most important cultural and historical associations.

I have some real problems with the current version. The sentence on etymology in the lead here is longer than the etymology section below in the article, and gives an entirely different explanation than the section in the article. I think the etymology doesn't really need to be in the lead at all, It is not in the lead of most color articles.

It's not necessary to use space in the lead to explain what complementary colors are. A link is enough.

I also don't believe its necessary to go into the different variations and shades of blue in the lead. No other color article does that. There's a whole section on this in the article, and there are individual articles on all the variations; no need to repeat all of this in the lead of the article on blue. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Discuss away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Neither, although the lead should be at least as long as the longer version. The lead should attempt to convey the whole range of information that will be found if you read further. So, it should include some mention of:
  • Linguistics and etymology
  • Physics & occurrence in nature
  • Dyes & pigments
  • Artistic use across cultures and time
  • Cultural meanings across cultures and time

Agree with the "shorter lead" proponent that there's no room here for reproducing any of the detail from any section: Noyster (talk), 13:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I cobbled it together late in the evening, so figure it can do with a bit of addition and subtraction of content. Mainly wanted to get a consensus on size to avoid more edit warring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Noyster, the lead should contain a summary of the major points mentioned in the rest of the article. There's probably not enough room for every section to be represented, but the topics he mentioned are probably good. Doing this will probably bring the lead up to at least the same length as the longer version.  DiscantX 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that several editors have asked for a longer lead; I have added one new paragraph summarizing blue in art and history, and am working on another to summarize blue in nature. There will be more to follow. As several editors have noted, there probably isn't space to summarize all the sections of the article, since it covers such a wide range of subjects, and many of the sections are quite short; a summary would be as long as the section itself; but the main points can be included. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a few differences in the text that also need to be resolved; the lead currently gives a different wavelength of blue than the info box and the section on optics in the article, and the etymology of blue is explained differently in the lead than it is in the article. I think these can be fixed without much trouble.

I agree with ditching the shades and agree there is no need for oppposite colours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

Under the history heading in the article on blue, one of the photos is incorrectly labeled.

A lapis azuli bowl from Iran (End of 3rd, beginning 2nd millennium BC)

The word "azuli" in the above text should be changed to "lazuli" Ingsoc225 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090308161631/http://www.sanford-artedventures.com:80/study/g_color_wheel.html to http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/g_color_wheel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to resize galleries

I would like to change the galleries to the packed format, which is used in the articles on red, green, black, white and other colors. It will make the images a little larger, and will eliminate a lot of wasted space between and around the images. I will do several galleries to show what it would look like, and invite your comments. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pink and blue for boys and girls

In the section on Gender, this article says, "Blue was first used as a gender signifier just prior to World War I (for either girls or boys), and first established as a male gender signifier in the 1940s." This is referenced to an article in Smithsonian. This doesn't look right.

Blue for boys and pink for girls was first enunciated in 1870 by writer and social reformer Kate Gannett Wells. By the 1880s the rule was firmly established in much of the US. Then, in the November, 1890 edition of Ladies' Home Journal, dressmaker Emma M. Hooper proposed an opposite rule, which began to catch on in parts of the country where no rule had yet been observed. For the next several decades the two rules coexisted in different regions. Then, around 1920, printers of birth announcements (among others) began calling for nationwide standardization of baby colors, urging that the nation go with majority rule. Over the next 20 years, the "blue for girls" rule began to fade away, until by 1940 it was pronounced officially dead. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff. But you need a source that can be cited for it. If you have one then it certainly could and should be included. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can find references in one of my sandboxes here User:Zyxwv99/sandbox8. I'm still researching this, but this research paper would probably be a good one to include: The Twentieth Century Reversal of Pink-Blue Gender Coding: A Scientific Urban Legend? Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Looks like you're doing a thorough job and there's certainly an article to be had on this subject alone. Look forward to your results on this page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mentions in ancient literature

According to this, William Gladstone counted mentions of colours in the Odyssey and found there to be not a single mention of blue. Lazarus Geiger did this for other forms of ancient literature – the Indian Vedas, the Aryan Avesta, the Icelandic sagas, and also found few mentions. This issue could form an interesting para in the article and doesn't really seem to be covered as yet. Malick78 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this before. It's pseudoscience. It could still have a place in this article, but only if we provide solid references to debunk it. Admitedly our ancestors have experienced changes in their vision, but on a much longer time-scale. About 90 million years ago we lost our blue cones, which is why the ones we share with other placental mammals are actually violet cones. The platypus lost the violet cone, but has blue cones. The first mammal lost the red cone. Nearly all vertebrates are tetrachromats, most mammals are dichromats, but simians (including us) are usually trichromats. The first vertebrate, circa 550 mya, was a tetrachromat and could see blue. One thing that's changed is the names we give to colors. Isaac Newton's blue was our sky blue. Our modern blue was his azure. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A different image for the head of the article

Dear editors: I would like to suggest that we put a new image at the head of the article which better reflects the content of the article. The current image doesn't give any information about the color or the content of the article it's not clear what it's supposed to represent. Shades and varieties of blue are already represented in the gallery, plus there is a separate article on that. I would like to add a montage that shows different examples of blue in nature and culture. A similar montage has been in place for a long time on the article on the color white. Since the major part of the article is devoted to blue in nature, culture, art and society, I think this makes more sense. Below is the proposed image. Your comments and suggestions are very welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Capitalism

When is blue associated with capitalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Cold War
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Processing Woad: How long?

The section describing the processing of woad reads "The process of making blue with woad was particularly long and noxious- it involved soaking the leaves of the plant for from three days to a week in human urine, ideally urine from men who had been drinking a great deal of alcohol, which was said to improve the colour. The fabric was then soaked for a day in the urine, then put out in the sun, where as it dried it turned blue." [emphasis mine]

First it says "three days to a week in human urine" then it says "The fabric was then soaked for a day in the urine". Was this the same urine they just got done soaking it in? Were they repeating the process? Did someone make a mistake in writing or editing this? In any case, the way it's written is rather confusing. It would be great if someone who knows the subject will take a look and clear this up.--Beetfarm Louie (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; I agree, the text was confusing. I checked the source and confirmed that the plant is soaked for three days to a week in the urine which made the dye mixture. The fabric was then soaked in the mixture for a day. What a smell! I'm glad I wasn't a dyer in the Middle Ages. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Blue jeans and indigo etc

Those that maintain this article might want to look at my edits.

• The dye processed from woad and the indigo plant are identical, that point being emphasized in my edit.
• Indigo, so far as I can tell, remains the dye in blue jeans.
• my guess is that the woad narrative is based on urban legends or dramatized somehow, since the extraction of indigo dye from indigo is more prosaic but is based on a technical review. I did not edit that part much, despite my suspicions (i.e. I could be flat out wrong).

I also tried to introduce a wee bit of chemistry in the second gallery, since its a major part of the story. If editors think that I messed up or something, leave a note or revert with edit commentary. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. There's certainly nothing wrong with having chemistry in the article, but I think it belongs in a different place. The opening gallery is intended to show the variety of blues that appear in history, art, nature, culture, etc. rather than an analysis of the chemistry. I would like to move this image to the section on pigments and dyes, where it seems more appropriate. Let me know if you disagree. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a regular here at the color articles, so if your judgement is to move the image, please do so. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Blue on your computer; does it look a little violet??

For some reason, the blue (0, 0, 255) on my computer looks a little violet. Is this true on many modern computers?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308204108/http://www.precisionintermedia.com:80/color.html to http://www.precisionintermedia.com/color.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211020352/http://www.estonica.org:80/eng/lugu.html?kateg=73&menyy_id=779&alam=85&leht=1 to http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?kateg=73&menyy_id=779&alam=85&leht=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

First Paragraph

"45 and 49.5 ångströms" changed "4500 and 4950 ångströms" "(47 ångströms)." changed to "(4700 ångströms)."

ångström is 0.1 nanometres, while wavelengths of blue light are between 450 and 495 nanometres. 10 nanometres per ångström means that these would be multipled by 10 instead of divided by 10 so the current values of 45, 49.5 and 47 are 100 times too small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ngstr%C3%B6m Defines visible light as being between 4000 and 7000 and the length of an ångström to a nanometre. Uberbuild (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Great Wave Off Kanagawa" - woodblock print, not a painting

The caption for the image of Hokusai's "The Great Wave Off Kanagawa" reads:

"The 19th-century Japanese woodblock artist Hokusai used Prussian blue, a synthetic colour imported from Europe, in his wave paintings."

The caption seems confusing. Hokusai is identified as a woodblock artist, but it states that Prussian Blue was used in his paintings, which would imply that the captioned image is a painting. It's actually a woodblock print.

I'd suggest changing the caption to :

"The 19th-century Japanese woodblock artist Hokusai used Prussian blue, a synthetic colour imported from Europe, in his wave prints."

or

"The 19th-century Japanese artist Hokusai used Prussian blue, a synthetic colour imported from Europe, in his woodblock prints of waves."

The rationale of the latter version is to avoid loading the start of the caption with jargon ('woodblock') that might trip up an unfamilar reader. 'The 19th-century Japanese artist Hokusai' is clear enough without it. R sek (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081203173318/http://www.met.police.uk/history/definition.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/history/definition.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814034817/http://www.sinodefence.com/army/organisation/blue-army.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/army/organisation/blue-army.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927030826/http://english.president.go.kr/tours/place_buildings/main_office.php to http://english.president.go.kr/tours/place_buildings/main_office.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904024808/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq12.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Improving the Lead

Dear Blue Brigade: This article is currently gets a B rating in quality from the Color Project, but only a C rating from the Editorial Team. The lead in particular is longer than it needs to be, and doesn't adequately reflect the content and importance of each section of the article. The lead needs to be written in a clear style that is comprehensible to ordinary readers. Also, the lead should give about equal weight to three major topics; science and nature; history; and culture and symbolism, following a short paragraph which introduces the subject in a non-technical way and explains why it's notable. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has 45kb (7804 words) of readable prose and is hence on the upper limit of overall size. Lead size should correspond roughly to article size. As it stands, the first paragraph covers - core definition and spectrum etc. The 2nd para - covers the word, and segues into nature. The 3rd para covers symbolism and cultural associations. The first item that struck me as not notable enough was a random US survey, so I removed it. There could probably be more on nature - the sea and sky are nature and should be covered with the nature items which is now the second para. The origins of the word possibly needn't be in the lead at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay - looking at it, I agree that spectrum is apart of nature, hence should be grouped with other effects. Flipping it as so first para has natural flow: primary colour --> spectrum --> segues nicely into air/sky/atmosphere etc. I still think the surveys are given undue weight but if they must be included surely they are part of culture/symbolism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

What's missing still here an opening sentence which identifies the topic and explains why it's notable. Any suggestions?

It doesn't need to be notable. It is identified by being described as a colour. And by the infobox with a bunch of blue things in it. Also in the first para, some familiar blue things are discussed. Note that none of these are factually incorrect, and are hence ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Here's the MOS on the lead paragraph:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The lead does have to establish notability, and needs to say more than that blue is a color. Here's what the MOS says:

"The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

Before you do much more editing, you really need to read the Manual of Style.

SiefkinDR (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have read the manual of style. The only reason the colour articles have been consistent with one another is that you've owned them for years and no-one else has paid much attention to them. We have already had a discussion about lead length and the consensus lay with my idea and not yours. You keep on about these "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" as you're angling to insert another demonstrably incorrect and facile statement about "blue is the colour of the clear sky" that people over the age of nine would recognise on some level as incorrect. I mean, you do understand that, right? That the statement "blue is the colour of the clear sky" carries the understanding that "all clear skies are blue" - yes or no? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I still can't get past your argument that "blue" needs to better establish its notability. What is it about it being a primary colour that isn't good enough? There may be good reason to mention things that are blue, but establishing notability simply is not one of them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I couldn't accept an argument in the form "Sorry, indigo. You may be a traditional colour of the spectrum, but there just aren't enough indigo things to make you notable." William Avery (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, we are having the same argument on Talk:Red#Notability_of_red...sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

Citation 63 leads to a 404, here is a link to an archive of the page before it broke: https://web.archive.org/web/20141119095538/http://www.army.mil:80/symbols/uniforms/history.html

Citation 7 doesn't lead anywhere and I tried to find an archive but even the earliest archive on the wayback machine just breaks. I found this: https://archive.org/details/ThePrinciplesOfOptics which is a copy of the book but I don't know to what part of the book the original link went to so it's not much use. Breegul (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed first link to wayback, the second I just removed. Books don't necessarily have to have external links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability of blue

According to the WP Manual of Style, the first paragraph of the lead should briefly explain the notability of the subject. The wavelength alone is not the reason why blue is notable, it's the occurrences in nature, associations and symbolism. I would like to mention the two most important occurrences of blue in nature, as cited in the OED, ("the color of the clear sky and the deep sea") in the first paragraph of the lead, rather than far down. They're both explained in much greater detail in the body of the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the second paragraph. The material is arranged in a way where similar themes are grouped together. A historian or artist may find the mention of cobalt blue or woad more notable to them than the sky. The OED possibly shouldn't be used for scientific things as the colour of the north atlantic often looks more angry green...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I really urge you to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on writing leads. The first paragraph is supposed to be able to stand alone, and explain why the subject is notable. Also, please recall that this is not a scientific article (most of the text is about history, culture and symbolism), and the first paragraph should reflect that. The and MOS also says that technical language should be avoided as much as possible in the first paragraph. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Blue is notable because it is a primary colour. Nothing further is needed to make it notable. Descriptions such as the colour of the sky and sea may be relevant examples, but not suitable for the lead because they need further explanation to be accurate. The sky and sea is often not blue at all. And the OED is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: o-kay, lets look at that - "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." - in the case of a colour, this is done by the physics and optics, not some cherrypicked comparison to some colour. We try to avoid technical language as much as possible unless meaning is lost. If meaning is lost then we can't substitute terms. Also a dictionary definition is okay for somethings but not for more complex issues. We can't state "the clear sky is blue" as it carries within it an assumption that the clear sky is aways blue (which it isn't). Do you or do you not agree that a statement "clear sky is blue" or (for that matter) "egg yolks are yellow" implies that there are no exceptions? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: there is a similar discussion at yellow and red....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is it said in the manual of style that a color is defined only by physics? This is not a a technical article, as you can see from the list of different sections included, which should be given equal weight in the lead. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) Saying a colour is like an object is not a definition. (b) Equal weight doesn't mean jamming in first para. We have between 2 and 4 paras for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The blue sky and the blue sea are used as common examples to illustrate the definition in the color in the Oxford English Dictionary, and Merriam-Websters. The current lead is too technical, doesn't adequately state the contents of the article, and is unsourced. The opening part of the lead should not be purely technical and should reflect the contents of the whole article, not just the optics. What is the source of this definition in the first paragraph? SiefkinDR (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with optics articles and the best source for them. Normally there'd be a source in the article but this time there isn't. A source will be added to the body of the text where the information is that has been replicated in the lead. The sky is still discussed in the lead, just in a more professional and accurate manner in the second paragraph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As you know, this is not just an optics article, but an article about the optics, history, and symbolism of blue, and according to the Manual of Style the first part of the lead should be written in clear, non-technical terms.

I can suggest three definitions for the opening sentence, all sourced:

"An intermediate color between blue and violet; as of the color of the sky or sea on a sunny day." (Oxford English Dictionaries On-Line)

"Of the color whose hue is that of the clear sky" {Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary_

"Any of a group of colors such as that of a clear unclouded sky that have wavelengths in the range of 490-445 nanometers." (Collins Online Dictionary).

Any combination or variation of these, with a source, would make a good start to the lead.

Cordially, 15:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to establish veracity of the statemen as you and I have opposing views on that and we are not going to achieve consensus with two editors. I will set up an RfC question as follows:

"[blue] is the colour of the clear sky"

The question is - is this sentence accurate? What qualifiers can make it accurate? My concern is that as stated, it implies that all clear skies are blue, and hence is not accurate as skies at sunset and night are not blue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• no see above. My alternative is to discuss the blue of the sky in terms of Rayleigh scattering in para 2 of the lead. I am aware of the tertiary sources (dictionaries) above supporting the statement but they are blatantly not accurate as is (to me). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• keep simple This is a classic example of getting too tied up with technicalities. The sky is blue is fine.Attic Salt (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: would you then keep the second bit about sky/Rayleigh scattering so sky is mentioned in two separate places or remove or....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I see that Rayleigh scattering is discussed in the body of the article. Tyndall scattering is also mentioned in the lede, though, curiously, it is not mentioned in the body of the article -- in fact, in the section on blue eyes the scattering is described as Rayleigh (this might be fixed?). I suggest that the lead just refer to "scattering" and leave the details (Rayleigh and Tyndall) to the body of the article. Just my suggestion. Attic Salt (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep simple, per the Manual of Style. The beginning of the lead should say why blue is notable, not just because it has a certain wavelength (which all colors have) , but because it is the color of the deep sea and clear sky, and an important color in history and sybolism. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Rephrase to "clear daytime sky", "clear mid-day sky" or similar. Don't remove all together, as noting that the sky and sea are blue is important. AdA&D 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep simple, keep "The clear sky and the deep sea appear blue" and remove the rest of the sentence. The lead explains blue and what blue is. For further details they should read the article. StarHOG (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment' In many languages the colors of sky and sea are different. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• The current lede is fine. Including Rayleigh scattering, because "why sky is blue?" is a well-known question for ages. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo -- preposition... first sentence.

not [on] the spectrum, but [in] the spectrum. Duplicate 'in the' (Middle Ages) in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.135.132‎ (talk • contribs) 09:54, December 10, 2017 (UTC).

Fixed, thanks! AdA&D 15:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

the color of the sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.57.158 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone proposed this??

Has any Wikipedian proposed a technic so that this article will show either the American spelling or the Canadian spelling of a word that's common in the article depending on the options set up?? (Feel free to include some information on a similar question asked anywhere on Wikipedia.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Hawaii blue

An entry in List of colors: N–Z contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Parakeet Blue
• Pastel blue

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

Please change

• In German, a person who regularly looks upon the world with a blue eye is a person who is rather naive.

to

• In German, as well as in Swedish and Norwegian, a person who regularly looks upon the world with a blue eye is a person who is rather naive.

Best regards, 83.185.93.248 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Size

@Wikiuser100: the article isn't over 100 kB readable prose size that WP:TOOBIG talks about (you can check with the tool it links to, like I did). It's only 46 kB, so between should not be reduced and maybe should be reduced. Did you intend the tag? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up here on your changes, User:Finnusertop. As you are aware, the MOS section on TOOBIG is quite limited, and arbitrary in its distinction between readable and markup text sizes being too big. No reasons or rationales are given. Only in the next section (Wikipedia:Article_size#Markup_size) is the single concern over "modem speed" even raised in either regard, which takes no account of other size-related issues, which span everything from a page's user-friendliness to impact upon, or by, a user device's RAM and CPU limits.

I'm trying not to get mincing about this, or bogged into the merits of the article's content, organization, etc. (which I do believe, as with other color pages sampled, is way too overwhelming). There must be some consideration, however, when a page's markup size is almost triple its readable text's. It indeed puts a strain on user devices, to read but especially to edit.

The bottom line is that the page would be better trimmed down, with inessential content parsed into new pages or sections elsewhere, as per Wikipedia size guidelines. It would make it a better page for all users, especially those with any technology-related size/speed limitations. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up, Wikiuser100. I agree that it's particularly heavy on images and those should be cut down. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Finnusertop Great! "Cut down". Meaning (to me) cut out when lacking merit, or relocated to a new page or section elsewhere when having value but not intrinsic to defining the color blue at its page. As it is, that page suffers from being too much of a catch-all. Keep up the good work here at WP. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

the article could be trimmed a bit, with fewer images, but given the topic it will always need lots of images. It's a popular article, With 1200 viewers average a day, ahead of red and whire. Given that it includes history, optics, nature, and symbolim, its going to be rather long. But I'll see if I can cut it back some. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:SiefkinDR/@User:Finnusertop. I realize there is alot that can fall under a "color". I am not arguing so much for deletion (except where current content may be inappropriate/redundant/etc.) as condensing and relocating material to existing or new articles as appropriate, with "Link to Main" shortcuts inserted in the main article.

Ideally, the net will be a considerably smaller, much more cogent and user-friendly primary article, retaining all necessary headings and sub-headings, linked to articles comprised of relocated or related content as warranted. Good luck! Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are 2 history sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.1.251 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone subdivided the lead. Fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A Colorblind Person Is Messing Up The Colors

The colors used to be correct on wikipedia. Now, someone is replacing the correct blues with purples, and so far one green. The colorblind person is trying to call everyone else colorblind when they point out that he is messing up the color pages. I am a tetrachromat, not colorblind. The person doing the color page edits is clearly colorblind, mixing up blues and purples, and blues and greens. Look at the shades of blues on the bottom of the page. It's screwed up. --184.101.140.186 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Quran

The Quran is being seriously misquoted, the word Zurq, does not refer to the color of the eyes in any racial manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.5.14 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 October 2011

Quran

The Quran is being seriously misquoted, the word Zurq, does not refer to the color of the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.5.14 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 October 2011

Cops

Somebody has inserted a photo of Met police. Sorry, but this is not a blue uniform. It might look like dark blue, but it is black.129.127.32.139 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Woad; Isatis spp vs. Indigofera

The text under the picture of indigo dye (in section Dyes) seems to conflate two different plants, Isatis tinctoria (woad) and Indigofera tinctoria (indigo). This is especially confusing for the reader as it mentions that indigo was introduced to Europe in the 15th c., but of course woad was famously in use in Europe long before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.168.133 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to change one variety of word spellings?

I noticed when I visited this article, someone says it's "colour" as part of a British/Commonwealth English spelling. So, I will request that can I change those word spellings of one variety in this article from "colour" to "color" by taking off the "u" letter in all those words, as well as change from -ise to -ize for words ending with -ise? If you say no, then we'll keep it that way of those variety of spellings by means of ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN. There wouldn't be some errors in this article when I changed all those spellings in one variety from British/Commonwealth to American. You should say "color" in this article. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 08:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

Please add (Use dmy dates) to the top article because I can't edit it to fix date. 182.1.43.150 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Why? Does the article flip-flop between DMY and MDY? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In references yes, but in the article body no. In fact, there's hardly any dates at all. I don't see the point of the dmy dates template here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

i would like to edit this BBBoy19932021 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 17:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pop-Culture

Smurfs, anyone?

??? 2600:6C56:6800:57D9:DC34:5D71:E3F:FC2B (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Blue in Biology

I believe this article needs a section about Biology, and the blue color in animals and plants. For example, this paper (Umbers 2012) talks about blue in animals. Mateussf (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

English dialect

Why does this article use British English (just asking)? All the other color articles use American English. I don't want to change it, but I'm just asking. Deleonmaelizabeth (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably because the person who first wrote the article used British English. Wikipedia policy is you don't change English variety without a good reason. There's nothing to say "Blue" belongs more to any one variety of English than others.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Deleonmaelizabeth (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Colour blue in culture

Smokefoot, I think your WP:SPLIT to Colour blue in culture is defensible. (It would perhaps have been a good idea to get some feedback first, using WP:PROSPLIT, but let's set that aside for now.) What I'm concerned with now, is the removal of the information to the other article leaves a hole in this one, which should now be filled with a brief summary of the subtopic "Colour blue in culture" in a top level section at this article, with a {{Main}} link at the top of it. See WP:Summary style for descriptions of the relationship between parent and child articles, and guidance about how to do that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the split was not very consultative, but I was worried that the color project was moribund since I got no response on the project page. The change is so substantial that it would have been difficult to explain and my approach was to just illustrate a plan by dealing with blue and see how that split proceeded and how the split was received. One idea is to monitor (and refine) blue vs color blue in culture for a few days. My guess is that there will be no response, but let's see. If things go as I anticipate, other colors would be dealt with similarly. Further suggestions would be welcome. I did go into the further reading sections. I propose to write something about culture for the blue artcie to follow the main link.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smokefoot:, I see you've started in on the § In culture section, so thanks for that. I hope you're not finished yet, because given that the child article is over twice the size of this one, the summary section here should be at least a longish paragraph, or two or three shorter ones (possibly echoing the three content body sections at the child article). Also, besides being too short, in its current state it's unreferenced. (O/T: as a separate issue, the images should probably be moved elsewhere in the article, perhaps distributed, or to a WP:GALLERY section. You could keep one of them, maybe the goblet, as it illustrates how ancient the issue actually is.)

As far as the split, I understand your rationale and am undecided how I would have responded had this been put to a split proposal Rfc. The sum of the readable prose size of Blue plus Colour blue in culture is now 55kb (including additions post-split) which as far as a split based on size alone puts it on the low end of the scale. Whatever the outcome here, although WP:BOLD is definitely a principle I support, I don't think it would be in the spirit of collaboration to follow suit with undiscussed splits in other color articles. Since WP:WikiProject Color is inactive (so is WP:WikiProject Culture), there are other forums that could be used to attract opinions, and there's always the Village pump, which may be appropriate especially if multiple article splits are being proposed. Mathglot (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the timely tips and wiki-political context. I realize that the culture part of the blue article needs to be expanded, but such an overview requires serious effort. So my brief paragraph (plus gallery) is just a place holder. Challenging is that about 1/3 of the Colour blue in culture consists of bulleted information, which does not lend itself to summarizing. Otherwise, the section headers might guide the paragraphed overview to go into blue. I will go ahead and disclose the situation at the Village pump. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I Think that splitting blue in culture away from blue in optics is a very bad idea, It greatly reduces the utility and quality of both articles. Now you have to search two different articles to find basic information that should be in one. The reduced lead image is also very unsatisfactory. Please retun to a single article, and use the format used in other color articles. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus not to undo the split at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_situation_at_colors, feel free to weigh in there as well. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have contributed to all of the major color articles. The history and culture of the colors are an integral part of their story, and are just as important as the optics. Other language Wikipedia articles on colors do not have separate articles for the optics and the culture and history. Wikipedias in other languages keep them together. feel very strongly that color articles should not be split up into separate articles.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I also have contributed to many related articles. I can see your points, but would defend the split in two main ways, both aimed at enhancing the experience of readers:

1. The splitting opens opportunities for both the core blue and the blue in culture.
2. The cultural aspects in blue will be enhanced substantially.

To elaborate on my first point, blue dyes, and pigments are an elaborate area. That content is presently underdeveloped. No mention is made of blue emission (LEDs). Paint and inks are everyday things that are not discussed adequately.

To elaborate on the second point. I plan, hopefully with help (like yours!) to systematically expand the section in blue dedicated to culture. The section headers of blue in culture will guide the initial paragraphing. A more jokey comment about the culture thing: just how many madonnas and military uniforms and pots do reader really want to gaze at? Also notice that the old blue and the new blue in culture are magnets for bulleted factoids, which would detract. Those factoids approach, IMHO, indiscriminate information. Finally the split offers the opportunity to redress the US/Euro-centricity of the cultural aspects (no Native American, little Chinese, no Africa, no S. America).

Finally Wiki.en's blue is way ahead of other language articles on blue (wiki.en : 34000 bytes vs unsplit wiki.es: 39 452 bytes vs unsplit wiki.fr 48 340). --Smokefoot (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

THe text on blue in culture should be moved back to where it belongs, the article on blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiefkinDR (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want an article that is exclusively about blue in science and optics, it should be called "Blue in science and optics." An article about the color blue needs to include all aspects, including history and culture. You will see that the articles on blue in other languages include about half science and half culture. That's what the English article should do. And please you shouldn't make major changes in articles without discussing them first with other editors of the article.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Re "If you want an article that is exclusively about blue in science and optics". I don't. You don't. Nobody does. And anyway, what you or I want is irrelevant. The point is that we aim to serve readers. The envisioned blue article will have greatly expanded cultural aspects. Its a question of balance. Here is a poll:

• Red in culture: 456 Page views in the past 30 days.
• Red : 34,354 Page views in the past 30 days.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should merge them back but we can still do some spinning off again. We can give the "History" section its own article, "History of blue". The history and art section overlap way too much actually. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for a unified color article

I think This article needs to follow the long-established format of the other color articles, and the format used in other Wikipedias. You need to restore the full sections on history, art and culture. There was no consensus to create a separate article on blue in culture. Please don't chop off large parts of articles without discussion and getting a consensus of other editors first. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued advice and forbearance. I am just leaving this thing alone for a day or two, but I hope that you can continue to comment. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's really not acceptable to remove half the content of an article and move it to new article, without discussion or consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works.SiefkinDR (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

History of blue: its ultra-Eurocentric, consists of a collection arbitrary factoids, an the layout is heavily bulleted anecdotes. The figures look attractive (I like blue too), but the article is somewhat vapid and fairly indiscriminate. And as the page view data show with red vs red in culture, readers aren't interested in blue in culture. Its interesting, but not a well-formed topic, but consists of significant WP:Synthesis. Topics that are not well formed make for weak articles in Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these reasons are your personal opinions. This text has been in place for years, with edits by many others. Blue has had thousands of readers each month, and no one made the complaints you make. You don't remove entire sections because you don't like them, you need a consensus. The text you removed needs to go back. Then changes can be discussed, as with any other article.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason that I mention those negatives is that it is tricky to beef up the culture section of the split article. I will try. I guess with flags and uniforms (exciting stuff?).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm undecided on whether the unitary article is better than the split ones, and there are some arguments for retaining a single article, but the following arguments are not policy-based reasons that favor a single article:

• "in place for years";
• "edits by many others";
• "thousands of readers each month";
• "no one made the complaints you make".

There may be good reasons supporting a single article, but those are not among them. I agree with you that one shouldn't just "remove entire sections because you don't like them", but I don't think that was Smokefoot's intent, and the fact that the section content continues to exist at the child article negates the part about "not lik[ing]" them (whatever that means). I also believe that Smokefoot did not initially provide sufficient reason for a unilateral split (the proposed "too long" reason was iffy per WP:SIZESPLIT), and I said so, initiating the previous section above.

Since then, however, Smokefoot has argued in good faith for why the split is an improvement, and has also tried to deal with objections by providing a considerably expanded section on culture in the main article. It isn't clear where consensus stands now on this point, both in this discussion and at WP:VPR, with proponents on both sides. Perhaps a formal MOVE discussion will be needed, but in the meantime, arguments in favor of restoring a unitary article should be based on policies and guidelines, and not WP:IJDLI. I might even agree with you, but I think it's still up for grabs at this point. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

THanks for your helpful comments, Mathglot. As you have probably seen, I have restored a number of the sections of the original article, so it looks more like it did before Smokefoot chopped it in half. The article has been in its present form, combining culture, history and science, since 2016, and some parts go back to 2012 and older. The exact same format is followed by othe color articles; white, black, red, green, yellow, etc, and has been for many years, and those articles also have very large readership.

I think it's important to keep the same unified format, combining science, history, and culture used in all the other color articles. None of the color articles are purely about science and optics. This format, with science, history and culture combined, has been attracting about fifty thousand readers a month for years to the blue article, and comparable numbers to the other color articles, and I don't see any compelling reason to change it. Splitting it into pieces is not an improvement; it simply will make out harder for readers to find the information they are looking for. And finally, I think decisions to split articles should made by consensus, not by one editor. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Reflex Blue" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Reflex Blue and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Reflex Blue until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

ok FelixPae (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

World Cup-winning France to national team of France Ohnewell (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Left Unsatisfied

How disturbing it was to read the section Optics and Colour Theory, only to see the combination of Red and Yellow to form Orange left out of the colour combinations explanation. This couldn't have been intentional was it? SquashEngineer (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Theory Mixtures

In the same section Optics and Colour Theory, RYB Primary Colour model discussion includes mixing Red Yellow and Blue to make brown, but then is interlaced with a Primary Colour RGB mixing picture of Reg Green and Blue mixing together to make white. It is a little confusing without proper separation of the different colour models.SquashEngineer (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The RGB blue shouldn't be used as the representative of the blue colour

It's too close to indigo or purplish blue, if not being purplish blue itself. A more paradigmatic blue should be something like #0179D4. Restfultree2022 (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

I want to change the section in the Infobox Colour named Color to the Hex code this have before. I want to change 54BAFF back to 0000FF. SasukeFMS34 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - seemed clear to me. Was changed without discussion and does not match the source so an easy revert. Tollens (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Blue heeler

An Australian dog breed 195.188.221.251 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to change the top image collection

We need to be moving away from religion as a way to explain concepts. Suggest we remove the picture as inappropriate. 89.240.48.37 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

CIELAB

Please correct: L*=32.3; C*=113.8; h_ab= 306.3° ZJ (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pen ink color as a common usage scenario

I read the article in full and was quite surprised that nothing is said about the iron gall ink and that blue is a typical color for pens. Should this be included into the article? Or is this reference already included into other colors' pages, such as purple? demis^{<span style="talk} 23:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)