Jump to content

Talk:Red/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

I moved the following sentence from the main article here:

In fact, both blood and the planet Mars get their reddish hue from oxidized iron (rust).

I am not sure this is correct. First of all, hemoglobin is red whether it contains oxygen or not. Second, if it contains oxygen, then it contains molecular oxygen (O2) and not oxydized iron. Could somebody with a firmer grasp on these things please confirm? --AxelBoldt

It's bit of an odd sentence, but it's dead right - and oxygen has little to do with it. Haemoglobin contains lots of iron (hence the "haemo", as in the iron ore "haematite") which makes it red - we use it to carry oxygen around our bodies, by bonding the O2 to the iron in the haemoglobin then stripping it off in the individual cells. Spiders have copper instead of iron in their blood, so it's blue. Mars is, verfiably, covered with ferric oxide. In both cases, it's the iron oxide that makes it red, not the oxygen alone. hope that clears things up. 82.109.186.194 11:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is correct. Oxygen is bound to the Haem groups in haemoglobin chains to form oxyhaemoglobin (HbO8:

Hb + 4O2 -> HbO8

Although 'oxidized' may not be so chemically correct (I don't know about loss of electrons) they are loosely bound and not in the 02 form.

The forst photograph to illustrate RED is poor. It is not red. It may rlink to red in people's minds; but red it is not. If you want a red photo, I will find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.232.119 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the original statement, claiming that blood is red because of oxidized iron, is correct, or that my statement above is correct? --AxelBoldt original statemen -- sodium

Well, I don't understand your argument. What are you claiming actually causes the red colour of haemoglobin? As far as I know, haematite is red because of the Fe3+ ions. Haemoglobin (both oxy- and deoxy-) has Fe2+ ions - the iron is not oxidized by the binding of oxygen. Fe2+ ions cause a yellow-green colour, I think, so they can't be what makes haemoglobin red. Unless I've got something wrong here, the original statement is at best very misleading. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 8

The color of an ion depends on its environment. In aqueous solution ferric irons (Fe3+) are coordinated with six water molecules and have a yellow color rather than the reddish color of hematite, where they are coordinated with six oxide ions, while the anhydrous chloride is greenish. Fe2+ are green in aqueous solution but that doesn't say much, the presence of nitrogen and oxygen (only oxyhemoglobin is bright red) are going to affect the color significantly. The iron is definitely what is responsible, though, and most brightly colored compounds are made so by coordinated transition metals. Someday we should have an article on ligand field theory.

How about the following statement:

"Both the red color of Mars and the red color of blood are caused by an interaction of oxygen and iron."

That avoids the term "oxidization" which is not involved in hemoglobin if I understand it correctly. --AxelBoldt

Have some questions about this statement

In most if not all human languages, "red" is the first color name developed after "black" and "white."

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that ten thousand years ago, people only talked about black and white and then someone invented the word red? Or does it mean that babies learn to identify red after they identify black and white.

It's not obvious to me that we know enough about the development of language to make the first statement. If the second is true they it should be expanded.

Here's the story. I don't have a citation right wth me, but it's a fairly standard linguistic thing. A survey of a large number of languages revealed the following:
-All languages had terms for black and white.
-If a language had three terms, it had a term for red.
-If a language had four terms, it had a term for either yellow or green.
-If a language had five terms, it had terms for both yellow and green.
-If a language had six terms, it had a term for blue.
And so forth. I'll try to get a cite and expand on it - it could be an article. - montréalais
So red is just a color people tend to notice, (I think Red is one of the most noticable colors.) and then name. Its sensible from an evolutionary standpoint, blood is red (well, bleeding blood, anyway) and if blood is bleeding that's something generally beneficial to notice.

Although it's true that red is traditionally the color used on maps for the U.S. Republican party, it seems inconsistent to say this when the maps featured on Wikipedia use red for Democrats. Media:Image:ElectoralCollege2000.png I'm not sure how/if I should add this to the article, though, so I'm just tossing it out there. Rebrane

That's because it's not actually traditionally used for Republicans, unless by "traditionally" you mean "starting in the last 5 years". Before that it usually alternated between elections.

Now it says...

"The RGB coordinates of red are 255 0 0. Note that the red phosphor on CRT-based computer displays is slightly yellowish compared to a "peak" pure spectral red color: see metamerism."

True or false: the "peak" pure spectral red color is 255 0 128??

False, is defined as the color red on a monitor. If your monitor doesn't manage to show red at (255, 0, 0), you should recalibrate your monitor. Try adjusting the "color temperature" settings specifically. Photoshop has some excellent monitor calibration tools as well. Kim Bruning 21:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A discussion of metamerism wrt. CMYK might have been interesting, but it is not relevant to the RGB colorspace, since RGB is used for light sources themselves. Since I'd put in a nicer colorspace block, we can delete the paragraph entirely. Kim Bruning 21:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please answer

  1. What are the RGB coordinates of crimson??
(220,20,60) make a good crimson, if crimson is correct.

You could have calculated that yourself, just looking at that page source.

  1. What are the RGB coordinates of scarlet??

66.32.126.20 21:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, scarlet isn't defined on wikipedia, not at the moment at least. If you tell me what colors make up scarlet, I can probably tell you the right numbers. That or make yourself a user page, put where that page is on my talk, and I'll make you a sandpit so you can experiment with colors yourself. Will that too?

Kim Bruning 21:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, "scarlet" is mentioned at Wikipedia at the main red page. 66.32.126.20 21:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seen it. I'm going to guess at (255,127,0) which should get you pretty close.

Use one of the many tools I have mentioned to you now to confirm that, or find a better scarlet. Do first make sure that your monitor is corectly calibrated. Kim Bruning 21:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  1. What are the RGB coordinates of rust?--138.67.4.203 01:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

List of terms associated with the color red

At least some of these should be merged into this article. anthony (see warning) 22:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) user

"Red" and "read"

The term "red" has also come to stand for an abbreviation of the word "read" and is being used as such by the current generation of high school and college students. The increasing popularity of what is now being referred to as "internet slang" furthermore provides for the possibility that use of the word "red" in place of "read" may become commonplace within the next few years.

What? I've never witnessed this. Nor have I heard about it. Nor red about it. ... ... D'oh! - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eww. Red=blue?

Alright, I'm assuming this is vandalism-- "Red is the color of blue"... it made 0 sense to me... Matt Yeager 05:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Red and Malta Labour Party

Red is the colour of the Malta Labour Party a leading political party in Malta. Why was this entry removed Maltesedog 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are magnets coloured RED?????

OK this is very confusing to me,and I not complaining anything about the article,but why magnets are generally coloured red is what I wanted to know...you may please inform me on spamthis@hotmail.com....

Good question. This article on old electromagnets points to the practice being very old, 1836 at least. Here's an even earlier one, from 1751. The North-seeking ends of magnetic compass needles have been painted red since time immemorial, perhaps because red paint was the brightest available. Then, when magnets were sold for other purposes, their north poles were painted red and their south poles white for identification. I guess that, when magnets were sold for uses where polarity was not important, the manufacturers didn't bother with the white paint and just painted the whole thing red. --Heron 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of incomplete list

I removed the section that contained the incomplete Shades, Tones, Tints, etc list, as what little info it contained was duplicated in different ways in other parts of the article. What was there is copied here, in case somebody wants to work on it.

Shades, Tones, Tints, etc

Shades Description Tones Description Tints Description Other Description
Maroon A darker shade of red that is much like brown Pink Lightish red. Rose As its name implies: A shade of red much like that of a rose. This shade is half pure red and half maroon Raspberry A shade of red that is a combination of purple and red with slightly more red

I also rearranged the article a bit, though nothing else was removed. -- moondigger 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Wavelength?

This page says, "Red light has a wavelength range of roughly 630-760 nm." However, if you follow the link from "630-760" that other page says "625-740 nm — wavelength of red light". So, which is the more accurate wavelength range for the color red, "630-760 nm" or "625-740 nm"? -- 70.20.235.230 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

-This is also true with initial paragraph and then graphic to the right. --169.232.89.120 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not really an exact boundary between colors. It's a matter of perception. What one person sees as blue another sees as green. So neither is really more accurate.... though it probably would be good to use the same approximation within an article. I started added wavelengths and frequencies to the color boxes, but stopped when I couldn't decide what source to use. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Color#Spectral Colors PaleAqua 10:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The same problem exists between different languages. In french it is "630 à 780 nm", in english "625–740 nm" -- IIIIIIIII (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In animated series

Is it notable enough to mention that red is sometimes the prefered hair colour for the leader of a team in animated series, and therefore connected to leadership? For example: Blossom from The Powerpuff Girls, Kim Possible from Kim Possible, Sam from Totally Spies!, Bloom from Winx Club, and Will from W.I.T.C.H.. Just saw a slight pattern, and wanted to see your opinion, that's all.T-borg 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are the person who saw the pattern, this comes under Wikipedia:No original research. Notinasnaid 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Guess if there's no other proof you're right.T-borg 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Red is nowadays simply a color that represents leadership, first popularized by Power Rangers/Super Sentai. Keith from Voltron is the leader of the Voltron Force and wears a red uniform. In Powerpuff Girls, both Blossom and Brick, in addition to having red hair, wear both shades of red, although Brick's shade of red is darker to be more masculine. Andros 1337 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if we can't provide sources, it's still original research, and I don't really know where we're going to find such.T-borg 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's stupid....All research is originally original. Find it weird that it's so facist with such things. What makes someone elses "reseach" more important than others? :/ ...Especially if everyone agrees, thought democracy's supposed to be promoted in America ;) .....Ooops, forgot it's a Plutocracy just like everywhere else... --Kurtle (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Red for Holy Thursday?

Red is not used in the Roman Catholic Church on Holy Thursday. Red is used for the Holy Spirit, the martyrs, and Jesus' Passion. Holy Thursday celebrates none of these, but rather the institution of the Holy Eucharist, for which white vestments are worn. Nor is it ever used for Easter time, white being the proper color for that season.70.161.209.90 04:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox

The CMYK details in the infobox are displayed in the article as "0, 100, 0, 0" (magenta), though the source correctly indicates 100 for yellow. Strange. Or is it just me?--Jeffro77 10:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The current values are clearly wrong, but who says 0,100,100,0 is right? This is why Wikiproject Color is aiming to remove all CMYK values unless they are part of a standard. Notinasnaid 10:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, probably better to get rid of it completely. But 0,100,100,0 is at least a shade of red. Magenta just isn't red at all.--Jeffro77 10:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RGB and HSV values

Are these things really necessary in the color infoboxes? Are they accurate enough? Sure, while #FF0000 might be red, so is #AA0000,and even #110000, just not as bright(meaning not as many photons of that wavelength are being emitted). It is still red regardless. I'm not really for deleting things, but is there a good reason for having this? This is an article for the color "Red", I don't see why the computer application of colors seem to take a sort of dominance in them. Wikidan829 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please join the debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. Notinasnaid 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

photography

Added a reference to red lighting being used in darkrooms as a safelight -- even though today we mostly use yellow/amber lights, the image of the photographer working in a deep red glow is well-established in film. I was a little surprised that it wasn't there, considering that there is a "photography" section. 67.158.111.66 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The caption describing the agar plates seems incorrect. It should be "bacteria growing on blood agar plates (BAP)" or "red blood cells in agar plates" not "red blood cells on agar plates." Nels5189 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

please add wine red to this page

I have no idea about how to add colors. However, there is a color of red this article is missing. the color wine-red. It's actually a pretty popular color and the word was found in one dictionary [[1]] so I was surprised it wasn't in here. It's the color of many chairs and office equipment. Here's what it looks like [[2]] Thank you Maleman19 06:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

wrad... your undo of my edit is ignorant.

yang = masculine, not feminine. If you continue undoing my edit, you are just showing your ignorance. --Naus (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so rude. You don't have to threaten me. I just double checked my source and realized my mistake. However, Yang is yellow, not red. We need to change it to mention Yin, not Yang. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I just changed it. Next time, rather than starting a discussion with a threat, you may want to WP:Assume good faith. You might find that it leads to a pleasanter exchange. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am most certainly not clueless. Look at the source here. At wikipedia, we rely on the sources. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I just found another source claiming Yang is red and added that to the article. I guess we're both right. Wrad (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing phrase

In the "in other cultures" section: "Like most Central African cultures, the Ndembu see red as ambivalent, better than black, but not as good as red." I presume that the last "red" is wrong, but I don't have access to the source to check how. Can someone fix this? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oops. Fixed. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Red from the union jack

The statement that red in the US and other countries flags comes from the Union Jack is unsubstantiated. It could be due to other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.99.6 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you name one country specifically mentioned that is wrong? The US is not, and "other countries" could mean anything. Wrad (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just added a ref for the US Flag's connection to Britain. Believe me, it is not unsubstantiated. Wrad (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that the red in the US flag is from the British flag, but there is no mention of the light, bright red of the Canadian flag. Canada used to fly a red ensign, but the maple leaf is quite different. Does that shade have a name? WILLOBIE (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Representation?

I think in the column where Red is commonly represented at isn't being taken from a world POV. In many cases it also represents royalty (especially in East Asian cultures), should that be added? -76.172.54.29 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference, yes, by all means. Wrad (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Political movements

Wouldn't it be appropriate to explain/mention the (seemingly backward) representation of Red States (Republican) vs. Blue States (Democratic)Red states and blue states as used by the news media in U.S. elections? Samatva (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes it "seemingly backward?" -- Moondigger (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Red traditionally = left. I don't see any unusual significance in this particular color set, though. That's why I haven't added it. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CDs and BlueRay lasers under Colorimetry

Why is there a paragraph on optical storage media in the Colorimetry and color science section? The wavelength of the lasers have nothing to do with human vision or color.--Thorseth (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's only a sentence, not a paragraph, and the reference that follows it directly contradicts your assertion that "the wavelength of the lasers have nothing to do with human vision or color." The lasers are able to write smaller in blue than in red because blue has a smaller wavelength. Wrad (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The difference has only to do with wavelength, nothing to do with vision, which is why the questioner was asking about the placement in that section. I'll fix. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No new sections please

Please don't add new sections to the Symbolism section such as "Religion" and "Metaphysics". That section is organized by what the symbol means, not by were it came from, unless it is an non-western symbol. Other color articles have endless lists of junk under similarly endless headings announcing insignificant topics. Let's not do that here. Wrad (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that too many articles are made choppy and useless by adding sections. But there is also the poinnt that it is ethnocentric and POV to relegate "Non-Western" symbols to a separate and unequal section, just as it would be to have a section on, say, "non-Chinese" or "non-Indian" symbols. Is there a way to fix this without losing the coherence of the article?
As an aside, a quick Wiki search for "non-Western" shows thousand of hits, so this is an epidemic problem! ch (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Red = good luck?

Isn't red also a good luck color for the Chinese, hence their use of it in weddings? Lightning Thundercat (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Redshirts

In Star Trek: The Original Series, aren't redshirts bad luck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.19.167 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reddening" redirects here.

Though AFAIK the term "reddening" can also refer to the pagan practice of bleeding on objects to color them in a belief that doing so imbues them with power, energy and lifeforce... For example, in Nordic & Germanic paganism, "reddening the runes" is coloring their carved alphabetic characters used for writing with the blood of the writer. Maybe there should be a disambiguation page for this other usage of 'reddening' meaning to bleed unto as commonly used, particularly in Germanic mythology and ancient practice rather than simply a redirect to the 'red' article. 4.242.192.96 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strawberries, not poppies

Strawberries are like the most common known fruit that's red. Try replacing the poppies with a strawberry image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.72.220 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

is it really Necessary to have an article on red

red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.137.4 (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag Map

In the map of flag's with red, Saudi Arabia doesnt have red so it shouldn't be highlighted. Also I don't think Iran and Turkey have red beacise of Communism as they were never communist.

99.247.60.143 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The map doesn't say that Iran and Turkey have red for Communism. Wrad (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Distinguishing red from orange in language" article proposal

Please read here for new article proposal. ANDROS1337 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban Myth

It's been said that the color Red provokes Bulls into attacking when movement, of the body or an inanimate object, is what really triggers their aggression. --Arima (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've have a quick read through and this is a very interesting article. It will probably make GA this time round, but some work will be needed in at least a couple of sections. The Pigments section is merely a tabulated list of wikilinks and is devoid of text. I would have expected some discussion (its not going to make GA as it is) of pigments, possibly starting with natural (mineral and animal based) pigments and then going on to synthetic (oil-based) pigments; possibly paints, varnishes, stains, etc - but I will cover that in more detail later. I think that the photographic section (well one paragraph) is rather thin - but I will also cover that in more detail latter.

I will now be starting a detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

To clarify my points above, this article is quite close to being a GA so I'm not going to quick fail it; but I'm not accepting Pigments, for instance in its current state. This review is likely to take at least a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed comments

  • The article is quite readable, is well-illustrated and stylised; and purports to cover a wide area of science and technology. On that basis is "appears" to be GA-material, but on detailed review I'm having reservations.
  • I will now highlight some of the "problems"; these are listed in order, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. As such, this part of the review tends to be somewhat negative; but the strong and the good points will be covered by the end of the review.
  • Etymology and definitions -
  • In science -
    • Colorimetry, color science, vision, and photography-
  • Whilst this subsection is entitled "Colorimetry, color science, vision, and photography" it provides some wishy-washy statements that are not always substantiated by the citations attached to the sentences (where provided) and no detailed discussion of the topics is given.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - This section could, perhaps, do with a good copy edit. The first paragraph starts off with vision of red light, moves to IR light and then CD lasers and returns to rod cells in human eyes. I suggest that you discuss eyes first and then consider other systems, such as photography, making the point that photographic media "sees" colour differently to the human eye.
  • Surprisingly, as this is red, no mention of colour blindness appears.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - I'm not convinced that the "colour" of the laser is important, wavelength is the important factor as that determines data packing density - colour is incidental to wavelength, not the other way round.
  • In the first paragraph, the statement "Red light is also used to preserve night vision in low-light or night-time situations, as the rod cells in the human eye aren't sensitive to red" is not substantiated by ref 10, which is an article about stargazing.
Read paragraph 8, "Sensitize Your Eyes".--Ipatrol (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Read my comments below. Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't jump straight into rod cells, if you're going to talk about sight discuss it properly, (see Green for instance).
  • Night vision covers a number of possible applications, here I assume that it is used (on the basis of the citation and the piped wikilink to Adaptation (eye)) in the context of stargazing. Night vision can also refer to devices used to "see" in the dark and this article does not clarify which application it refers to, neither does it acknowledge the ambiguity. More importantly, it merely states: "Red light is also used to preserve night vision" with no explanation of how red light is used.
  • The following sentence claims to be substantiated by a web page that appears to be a Grade 3, 4 Educator's Reference Desk Lesson Plan.
  • The middle paragraph is unreferenced; it appears to be an opinion biased towards computer monitors and television screens and repeats itself; but no explanation of why/when computer monitors and television screens might need correcting.
  • Various color systems, spaces and models are wikilinked in both the first and second paragraphs, but there is no discussion of colorimetry and why it might be important. There is no real discussion of topics where/when colour matching / colour consistency is important (use as paints, wall coverings, etc) but the use of a tradename such as "post box red", "signal read", etc, might to adequate as a colour description.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The third paragraph is unreferenced. It appears to be a number of "photographic" sentences strung together with a "red theme" with little or no understanding or explanation of why red light" produces the stated effect.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    • In nature -
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The M-stars sentence in the first paragraph is unreferenced.
  • In the second paragraph, only the first sentence is referenced. The rest is, perhaps, opinion. A verifiable source aught to be cited.
  • Symbolism -
    • Sin, guilt, pain, passion, blood and anger & Courage and sacrifice -
  • Two of the better subsections - well written and well referenced.
    • Warning -
  • Not a bad subsection, but a bit uninformed. It states "Because of this, scientists have repeatedly recommended red for warning signals, labels, and signs.". Yes, but in some regions red for danger/warning signs has been mandatory for several decades, under heath and safety legislation, yet the article makes no mention of this legal requirement.
    • In religion and metaphysics -
  • The first paragraph is entirely unreferenced. It as added by an editor who is adding similar sections to the other colour articles under the editor summary: "Restore complete religion section" - I'm not yet sure whether this is an edit war in progress.
  • The final claim in the second paragraph, about Islam, aught to have a citation. Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Eastern and African traditions -
  • Generally well referenced.
  • Geography, sports and politics -
    • In sports -
  • A three-sentence paragraph. Yes, all three sentences may be correct. However, in some sports, such as football rules don't allow a game to play if both sides a wearing the same colours - so one team (or perhaps both) has to change to its second colours. This aught to be covered.
    • Flags -
  • Food and drink -
  • This is merely a list, with no explanation of why they are red, i.e. reason and purpose.
  • Fabric -
  • I don't see the point of this paragraph. Substitute "green", "pink", "orange" for "red" and the paragraph remains valid, there is nothing here that is uniquely "red"ness.
  • Pigments -
  • This is merely an alphabetical list, with no consideration of the "pigments", i.e which are mineral, which are natural and which are man-made. No consideration of properties such as staining power, brightness, light-fastness, etc.
  • Perhaps I need to clarify my comments. I was expecting an expansion of this list into text. Green, as far as I'm award is the only colour GA and it has quite a good subsection of this topic at In minerals and chemistry. Alizarin (in the list) was an "old" plant derived dye, the ochre and the red lead were obviously mineral and has uses in protecting metal (well iron & steel) from rusting. Synthetic dyes links into fabrics, processed foods, paints etc. This section should have been expanded as per Green - which also covers pyrotechnics (which I find interesting) and gemstones (lasers - already mentioned).
  • There can be risks involved in "clearing" actions by cutting the scope, you could fall foul of WP:WIAGA rule 3(a). Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Just about adequate as an Introduction and summary, but could do with some expansion.
  • That this point I'm putting the review On Hold. The article has the potential to make GA, but needs proper referenced; and, in some subsections, expansion of details. The article Green is a Good Article, and I suggest that a look be taken at it for inspiration.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as progress is being made, I'm fairly flexible about the Hold period, but if the article justs sits there, it will fail. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Nominator

I see your points and I will work today on those points. I have some new citations compiled and I request you look again on UTC Monday.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Still working. I got an unexpected suprise from work.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I removed a line, most of the second paragraph of the nature section simply speaks of what animals are red. That they are in fact red is quite clear from their title and the intros of those pages, so I felt that citations there would simply be gratuitous.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the flags section references those references in another artice by using "see". The last one states what can merely be confirmed by a quick glance of those articles.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as a means of validating statements in wikipedia articles (so regardless of whether its a "see" or a wikilink, it does not count). Pyrotec (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article has the potential to being a GA but it is not there yet.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    good in parts.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    good in parts.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Whilst the scope was fairly reasonable at the start of the review, corrective actions have consideraable reduced the scope of the article in some areas. The scope is well below Green which I suggested be used as a mode, and is the only GA in this series (so far as I'm aware)
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article deserves to be a GA, but progress has stalled. I'm therefore closing this review: GA-status is not being awarded. Pyrotec (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RGB coordinates for Red

What RGB coordinates do you think sound more natural to call "pure red"?? The reason most people like to say 255 0 0 is because of the R that stands for red. However, 255 0 128 is actually pure red, defining it as red that is totally neutral on the blue-yellow scale (the scale that defines blue and yellow.) Practice this:

Go to Microsoft PowerPoint. Upon seeing the first slide, edit the colors so that the background has RGB coordinates of 255 0 128. Then, draw a rectangle or oval and make the coordinates 255 0 0. Then, set the line settings for the rectangle and oval so that there is no line. You will see that the rectangle or oval is actually somewhat orange-ish and that the background is more pure red.

There is another version of this, which is to replace "red" with "green", "255 0" as the first 2 RGB coordinates with "0 255", and "orange-ish" with "lime-ish".

Maybe that happens in PowerPoint, can't be sure. But when I tried those colors (not in powerpoint), the 255-0-0 is clearly red and the 255-0-128 more like pink. 85.217.22.170 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The color 255-0-0 gives the color of the red primary of the output device (if not color managed) or of the color space (if color managed). It's hard to imagine any other color having a better claim to be being "pure red", since the others just mix in some of the green and/or blue primaries. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

etymology

"This is the only color word which has been traced to an Indo-European root."?

Blue has this: "Through a Proto-Indo-European root, it is also linked with Latin flavus ("yellow"; see flavescent and flavine), with Greek phalos (white), French blanc (white, blank) (borrowed from Old Frankish), and with Russian белый, belyi ("white," see beluga)"...

The ref, in the online etymology dictionary is to "The only color for which a definite common PIE root word has been found."

The same dictionary gives for blue: "PIE *bhle-was 'light-colored, blue, blond, yellow.'"

I'm going to take that sentence out.--Annielogue (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

US

However, the major exception is the United States. There, red is associated with the right-wing Republican Party. (The reason is that U.S. television networks assigned blue and red to states awarded to the Republicans and the Democrats, respectively, on news maps; the color assignments were alternated every presidential election, but the controversial 2000 presidential election was when commentators happened to pick up on the color choices.)

What does this mean?

81.68.255.36 (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It means before the 2000 election Republicans weren't always red and Democrats weren't always blue. I've rewritten the passage to hopefully make that a little clearer (and added a reference). —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 10:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some info re: Red in India

I reverted a few edits, one of which being the following. This didn't appear to be vandalism but is both unsourced and in need of some copy editing.

== Symbolism == india the red colour plays a important role in indian culture, in eastern india the red "sindur" or the colour itself carries the symbol of fidelity and love for the spouse of an hindu woman. but if he is dead the woman loses all cultural right to wear red. in weddings and in worshipings this colour is mandatary. the 'shakto sadhu's i.e. monks who worship the mother goddess kali in any form wear red. red flowers like chinese rose is used in worshiping... it also signifies spring and often fire.
nikthestoned (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I think a bibliography or lis of books for further reading would be useful - it would show the basic works that were consulted on the subject. The article on blue has a good reading list. I would like to add text on the history of red which would refer to the books in the bibliography. SiefkinDR (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

chemicals that produces red color on paints and ink

this is another topic that could be of interest to some people / who has the knowledge to add this information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.218.110 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Red gold"

One of the interesting idiosyncracies of Old English is that the word "red" is frequently used to describe the metal gold. IIRC, the reason for this is that the Anglo-Saxon word for red indicated a slightly different complex of light properties than the modern English word. If this is of interest to anyone working on this article, I can take the time to track down some sources which explain this. -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

cf. Colored gold? I seem to recall that the Irish epics (Cu Chulainn, etc.) also make the distinction between "red gold" and "white gold". Choess (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No, not the same thing. It's an example of how the meanings of words have changed between Old English & Modern, similar to how OE dream meant "joy, festivity", but Modern English "dream" means "a sleeping vision". Per Stephen A. Barney, Word-Hoard: An Introduction to Old English Vocabulary (Yale: University Press, 1977), "The terms for colors in OE are confusing to us because the OE spectrum of hues was not divided in quite the same way (e.g., their "red" leaned toward the yellow).... Even more confusing are the numbers of OE color terms which denote, not hue (wavelength), but chroma (reflectivity, brightness, quality of light) or intensity (purity, admixure of white or black, lightness or darkness)." (p. 25) Barney goes on to provide other examples (such as brun which keeps its meaning of "bright, shining" in "burnish", but now as "brown" is defined in terms of hue or intensity, not chroma), then points to 2 further articles under incomplete citations, viz. MLR, vol. 46, & Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 3. -- llywrch (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
PS, I just read the first article Barney points to -- L. D. Lerner, "Colour Words in Anglo-Saxon" Modern Language Review, 46 (1951), pp. 246-249 -- & Lerner's aim in his short note is to point that a modern stumbling-block to understanding the OE color vocabulary is that it was far more atuned to brightness than Modern English, which is atuned to chroma. One example he provides is in Beowulf, where "passages such as the description of the monster's lake-dwelling leave an impression of gleaming lights and lowering shadows rather than of reds, yellows or greens." Lerner provides information about brun in this note than he does on red -- so Lerner's note would be more useful for improving Brown than for this article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! Add what you can! Wrad (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Red for stop?

Why is red used for the stop signal at traffic lights, etc.? Tabletop (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening of article

Wouldn't it be more appropriate and technically correct to begin this article with "Red is the color of the wavelength of light from approximately 620–740 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum. Next to orange at the end of the visible spectrum, red is the color of blood, rubies, and strawberries, and is commonly associated with danger, sacrifice, passion, fire, beauty, blood, anger, Christmas, socialism, communism, and in China and many other cultures, with happiness." (fns omitted).

Specifically, the edits would be:

Red is the color [begin strike] of blood, rubies and strawberries.[3][4] It is the color [end strike] of the wavelength of light from approximately 620–740 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum.[2] Next to orange at the end of the visible spectrum, red is [insert] the color of blood, rubies, and strawberries, and is [end insert] commonly associated with danger, sacrifice, passion, fire, beauty, blood, anger, Christmas, socialism, communism, and in China and many other cultures, with happiness.[5]

I understand your point of view, but I'm afraid I don't agree. The wavelength of red isn't the main subject of the article; it's mentioned only once in the section on optics. The main subjects of the article are the common uses, appearances in nature, associations and history of the color. The opening citing blood, rubies and strawberries is the description used in the Oxford English Dictionary, and other dictionaries, and I think it's what most people think of when they think of red. Given this, I think that a good lead for this article should reflect the majority of the content of the article and not put so much emphasis on the wavelength. Red is a lot more than just a wavelength of light.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Meta-Example

It seems to violate WP:SELFREF. Although it does begin with "Links on Wikipedia and other wikis..." it doesn't provide any sources and if you paste it in a word document, "like this one" doesn't show up as red. Also, it links to WP:REDLINK. Isn't there some sort of consensus against articles in the mainspace linking to project pages, except to disambiguate? If not, there should be.--203.100.0.82 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

2601:C:4D81:6A10:3DDE:1267:55EB:EC37 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rejected No request present.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

Please remove 'fire' from the first sentence of the article, as it is not agreed upon that red is the colour of fire. Flames come in many colours depending on temperature and fuel, and it is certainly debatable that even a common wood fire (which the sentence is likely referring to) is red, as opposed to orange, yellow, or a mixture of colours. 2601:B:AF80:6E9:39D1:B456:381E:12DC (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - see above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

First Sentence

I don't think anyone who's read the intro sentence will have failed to scratch their heads at the seeming arbitrariness of the examples used. It seems that the entry on Yellow follows a similar form, but it cites this form as being taken from the Webster's New World Dictionary of 1964. Merriam-Webster Online too has as its primary definition "having the colour of blood," but the justification for this definition seems like it rests on certain etymological associations between the name of the colour and its originally signifying "bloodlikeness" in some languages. Anyhow all I mean to say is that I believe it would make more sense to address what it is in scientific terms before getting on to cultural and etymological significance etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knock-kneed (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of blood, rubies and fire as common examples of red is not really arbitrary or old, it comes from the most current on-line version of the Oxford English Dictionary, and it's used in other dictionaries as well. I do agree that fire isn't a good example, since fire is rarely red, and I think it can be left out. I do think this sentence belongs at the beginning, because the principal subject of the article is not optics, though that's certainly included, but red in history, art, nature, culture and symbolism, and a large part of red's importance as a symbol is connected with the fact that red is the color of blood and sacrifice. I think the article should begin, as it does now, with the most common examples of red in nature and culture, followed by a brief explanation of the optics. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't and it looks like passers-by don't either. It looks facile - connotations are ok - so link of blood to bravery. Nothing global about a ruby. heat is better connotation than fire and left in. Need to expalin what a color is before saying what it is like.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put in the definition from the OED, because a statement like that should have a source. I also don't think you need to say that "red is a color..." since everyone knows that; it's necessary to say what specifically what color it is. I also took out of the lead the text about infrared and about how red is created in different color systems; those are covered in the optics section, and don't need to be in the lead.
I have tried to balance the lead between the optical definition and the culture and history. The optics section is one small part of the article; the great majority of the article is about red in history, culture, art, nature and symbolism, and this should be reflected in the lead. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to have that it is a primary colour in the lead - it is the most basic basic part of its definition. Happy to leave infrared out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Since we're adding more information about optics to the lead, I think we should also summarize the contents of the other sections, to keep it balanced. If no one objects, I can start doing that. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I also think we need to explain briefly what the RGB and RYB color systems are, because I think many general readers don't know. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wavelength range is off

Acording to the CIE standard observer the human visual system can detect light a wavelengths up to 830 nanometers, which will be perceived as red. The sensetivity is not high, only 1/1000 of the max so it is normally ignored. However it should not, I think, be ignored in the science section.Thorseth (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What is Red?

A part of RGB(http://rgbhexa.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.205.126.36 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC) A bit more research is needed to determine what the color red actually is in color theory -- that is in nanometers. The article on Blue states this.

Tyrerj (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semantic fix

A figure caption reads "Red is the color of a severe fire danger in Australia; new black/red stripes are an even more catastrophic hazard". Why would stripes be a hazard? Someone change the last part to "...denote an even more catastrophic hazard" please. -- 173.150.43.49 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Putting galleries into packed format?

Dear fellow editors: When the galleries were created back in the ancient days of 2012, I didn't know anything about packed galleries. I would like to update the galleries and put them into packed format, so the images will be larger, clearer, and there will be less wasted space between them. Please see the example of the article on purple. I welcome comments and suggestions. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

New image for the infobox

Dear fellow editors: I would like to suggest replacing the image in the info box with a montage which illustrates red in nature and culture, which better represents the contents of the article. This is what I propose.

What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Mars the Red planet.

Needs a little more. Something like:

Because red is the colour of blood, and Mars is the reddest of the planets, in a number of mythologies Mars is the God of War (because War creates bloodshed). Thus, the symbol for Mars (the same symbol as for "male") is a stylised shield and spear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.33.124 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested correction

In the section "5.2 In color theory and on a computer screen", third paragraph, the first sentences uses second person. Please replace this sentence with: "So that the maximum number of colors can be accurately reproduced on a computer screen, each color has been given a code number, or sRGB, which indicates the intensity of the red, green and blue components of that color." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Excuse me, I want to edit this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red Wlkr2220 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2017 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation issues and edit requests

  • "... it associated the power of the kings with the sacred rituals of the Church."
Citation has been requested for this sentence for almost four years now. Without proper sources, this is just pure POV and should be removed.
  • The whole section "In Religion" is completely unsourced.
  • Red as the liturgical color in all celebrations of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost, confirmation, reformation etc.) is well known from all churches I am familiar with. I would very much like to see sources for all other uses though, particularly for the use in the Holy Week (never heard of that).
  • I also very much doubt the priority of liturgical use for the feasts of martyrs over the days connected to the Holy Spirit, as it is currently presented in the article (again: without any sources whatsoever). The martyrs are mentioned first, and they are mentioned last. The Holy Spirit is sort of squished in on a small side note.
The color of the martyrs, however, is at best derived from the color of the Holy Spirit (meaning to show the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives), making that a secondary and not a primary use.
  • As a matter of fact, while the article frequently assumes a causal connection between the blood symbolism and the color red in church use, nowhere is there any serious source for this to be found (I cannot access the book mentioned in ref. 28, but I don't think a color theory and color advice book is a proper source for this kind of claim). On the contrary, as far as I am aware, red is the color of the Holy Spirit from the symbolism of fire, not of blood. We would definitely need some better sources for the "blood" connotation.

--93.212.237.194 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. If you feel so inclined, go for your life and be bold and edit it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! I won't get around to doing it today any more, but I'll try to find some sources and add them tomorrow. --93.212.237.194 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok great/go for it. If you make an account we can remember you as "the person who fixed the red article" ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
O.k., I guess I'll have to be the "Lady in Red" then or the "Red Rescuer"! :-)
I found a nice source that I could work into the liturgy part. It's in German, but it's standard literature on this subject. Of course, if someone finds an English translation or a corresponding English source, that's fine with me, but for now, this is what I could offer: Karl-Heinrich Bieritz: Liturgik, Berlin 2004.
Now here's the problem: For some reason, I still cannot edit the article. From the history, it looks like you did in fact unprotect the article, and there was no edit made after that, so this is really inexplicable. Do you have any idea what might have gone wrong? --93.212.240.155 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I goofed and hit the wrong key on the 'protect' menu. Should be fine now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability of red

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the first paragraph of the lead should explain briefly why the subject is notable. Red is certainly not notable only because of its wavelength, but because it has an important place in nature, history, culture and symbolism. Red as the color of blood, rubies and strawberries are all discussed, explained and illustrated in the article below. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The leads of articles of this size generally have 3 paragraphs - information is organized within them. The first para is not a "lead of a lead". What you've done with this is plonked some common red objects right in the middle of an optics section. In green, for instance, the material is organised so that para 1 is optics/spectrum/definition, para 2 is etymology and nature (easy there as the words are "green and grow" are linked) and para 3 is the symbolism. In the same way, in this article, the nature material is in current para 4, so repeating it in para 1 is repetitive and unnecessary. "blood" is currently mentioned of 3 of 4 paragraphs, which is too repetitive. we als can't stuff nature, history, culture and symbolism in the first few sentences. The first para of the lead is not a summary of the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we've discussed this before also. According to the manual of stye, The first paragraph is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. This paragraph simply says its in the spectrum of colors, which is true of all colors. It doesn't say anything specific except the wavelength, which of course all colors have. It needs a better opening paragraph that tells you more than just the wavelength.SiefkinDR (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The first para enlarged to include the mention of its primary colour status (like other colours). It is a colour, not some obscure BLP so there is no need to establish its "notability" at the sacrifice of structure. The science/nature stuff can be placed together so there is a narrative flow and structure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

The lead now has twenty-four lines devoted to optics and science and just four lines devoted to the rest of the article. This doesn't work at all. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I count 6 devoted to definition, 5 to science/nature and 2 to symbolism. Why not suggest here what can be added and subtracted then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


The definition given here for red is purely technical; the lead gives no mention at all to why red is an important color in history, art, and culture. Please take a look at the lead for blue, which I've been working on. It gives an idea of what a more balanced lead might look like. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, there is a third paragraph that can be expanded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the lead does need to be expanded, to cover in equal about length each of the main topics in the article: science and nature, history and culture, and symbolism and associations, each about the same size. The MOS says an article of this size can have four paragraphs.

The lead sentence has to establish the importance of the color in history, culture and nature. Just giving the wavelength doesn't do that. It needs some examples in the first sentence to do that. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The only person who keeps going on about notability is you. Material should be organised into related sentences so the lead flows (and not have random items in the first two sentences) and items should not be repeated. Cas Liber (talk contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize that I used the term "notability"; what I meant is importance. The first sentence now is purely about the technical aspects of light, and ignores the rest. The first sentence should read like an encyclopedia article, not like an optics textbook. Examples of the most common occurrences of the color would do that. In its present form, the first sentence of the lead is too technical, meaningless to ordinary readers, doesn't comply with the Manual of Style, and doesn't work. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


I don't quite understand where you're going here. You've deleted one of the only two citations in the section on science and nature. , to the Oxford English Dictionary, a highly-respected source, while the great majority of the section has no citations at all. at all. Don't you think the lead should be sourced? How can it be verified?SiefkinDR (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
We've been through this before - the OED is a good source on linguistics (obviously) but less so for other areas, and is a tertiary source in these areas, where secondary sources are better. Many rubies are pink, crustacean blood is blue, venous blood is a murky reddish colour only in a broad sense of the word. Perpetuating falsehoods because statements are too general is problematic. Verification for the subject matter is in the body of the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The wavelength of red light

There are a surprising number of different variations of wavelength given for red light in Wikipedia, depending upon which article you look at.

Article on "Red": 620-740 nm.
Article on Visible Spectrum: 620-750 nm.
Article on Color: 635-700 nm.
French Wikipedia on "Red": 622-740 nm.
Russian Wikipedia: 630-760 nm.

There's also a lot of variation in other sources outside Wikipedia.

LivePhysics.com- 622-780 nm.
Physlink.com: 622-780 nm.
NASA.edu site: around 700 nm.
Arizona State site: around 680 nm.

Do we know that the number in this article is more accurate than other sources? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, this looks....interesting. We need to look high quality secondary sources. Or ask someone who knows more about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, when you say that it's "predominant" wavelength, what do you mean? Do you mean it's approximately that wavelength, or usually that wavelength, or are you referring to the dominant wavelength? It should be explained more clearly, because this definition isn't comprehensible to non-scientists.
As I said, it's not my expert area. But worth a read. Have been really busy today. @QuoJar: might have some idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I found a good site at the Physics Department at Georgia State University which gives the approximate wavelength and explains clearly what it means (and doesn't mean). I used their figure, noting that it's an approximation, and that the actual figure can vary considerably. It's in both the article and in the info box. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion here shows that this is a good thing to have a citation for....but the url doesn't go to the page...I can't find it on the GSU website so can you get it out of your browser history? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the numbers above, most are very similar except for the book that is the source for the color article, yet I can't find it specifying the exact range, but just chops off the whole spectrum at 400 nm one end and 700 nm the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the wavelength from the lead

I propose that we take out the approximate wavelength from the definition in lead paragraph, and simply give the place in the spectrum. As the citation says, it's not an accurate definition; it's just an approximation, it varies because of different conditions, and as the citation itself says, "most colored objects give off a range of wavelengths and the characterization of color is much more than the statement of wavelength." Comments?SiefkinDR (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is not the wavelength of scarlet, or the other varieties included in the article, since they're mixtures of different wavelengths of light. Better just to say where it lies on the spectrum, which is correct. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did you get scarlet from? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, it looks like NASA gives a sample wavelength and others maybe give an approximation (given it also presumably raises the issue of an observers' classification of "orange-red" vs "red-orange" etc. - i.e. where does one mark a boundary between red and orange...). Look, I think it is a key part of the definition and I don't think including numbers is too onerous or cumbersome. So my vote is to include something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The approximate wavelength of spectral red is found in the info box and in the section on optics. I'm not sure why this is a "key part" of the definition, since it applies to only one variety of red. The citation says, "most colored objects give off a range of wavelengths and the characterization of color is more than the statement of wavelength." The spectral color red has an approximate wavelength, which is given here, and which varies depending upon different conditions. Most of the reds in the article aren't pure spectral red, and don't have that unique wavelength. The red used in the RGB color system, for example, has a wavelength of 609-614. Most of the reds discussed in the article, like scarlet and vermilion, have a combination of different wavelengths, since they're mixed with blue or yellow. Numbers are fine, but the number given doesn't accurately define the topic or content of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, the colour for the RGB is understandably a narrower definition. Also there is a distinction between the colour of the light and the colour or objects. I still think some sort of wavelength discussion is necessary - knowing that violet is shorter and red is longer. Plenty of pages online mention wavelengths so obviously they consider it a key component. An explanatory footnote can easily be inserted anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the range of reds in the lead

Almost all reds are a combination of the wavelength of red with wavelengths of other colors, so I've added "dominant wavelength" to the lead, and a link defining it. I have also added a line to the lead noting the range of reds, including some prominent examples like crimson and scarlet, which are described and illustrated in the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Survey here to see who thinks we should have citations in lead. Are any of these points controversial enough to require a citation in the lead. Post below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd say none of them are as long as the citations are in the body of the text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, particularly when text is added which doesn't need to be in the lead, which formerly happened frequently with all the color articles. Citations are also needed, per the Manual of Style, when the subject is controversial, and subject to frequent change, as is the case with a number of the color articles, particularly black, white and red. Experience shows that, without citations, the lead of a color article is quickly flooded with trivia and unreliable and unverifiable text. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Citations are useful in retaining information and preventing it being replaced. Without them, novice editors may decide to replace one important fact with one they learnt as a 10-year-old school child. I think that if something can be cited, then it should be. Everything in the lead merits a reference. –Sb2001 talk page 00:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sb2001: the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.", and then says "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." - so what in particular do you think needs a citation in the lead of red? all of it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we've discussed this before, I think. Citations are needed to show the sources of any article. Since the introduction to this lead is highly technical, I have no idea if it's accurate or not, and would appreciate citations. My argument with this lead is not so much the lack of citations (though that has to be fixed) but that the lead ignores most of the content in article, discussing mostly the optical qualities with a brief mention of the common associations. This needs to be fixed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. No, a well-written lead should summarize the most important content within the body of the article. The body of the article is where references should be placed. Since none of the information in the lead is controversial, I see no need for keeping references. Meatsgains (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It depends. (Summoned by bot). Per WP's MOS:LEADCITE, cites in the lede are neither required nor prohibited; it depends on the statements and how they are being summarized. So this RfC can't make a blanket decision that "nothing needs a cite" or "everything needs a cite". A lede statement should have a cite if that statement is not repeated elsewhere. A lede statement does not need a cite if it's duplicated elsewhere with a cite. The reason LEADCITE exists is that lede cites are awkward in cases where a dozen different cited statements in the article main are summarized into one statement in the lede. Also, ledes are often a general summary rather than exact, so lede statements like A car is a four-wheeled vehicle might skip having a cite because, in fact, a few cars have 3 or 6 wheels; the statement in the lead is giving a good general impression definition without getting bogged down into technical details that would defeat the purpose of the lede (as long as the details, like the other-wheeled cars, are fully and explicitly noted and cited elsewhere). From what I see on this Talk, the lede has some issues as already noted. Those issues should be sorted out before getting into cites for the parts of the lede under discussion. (On the wavelength, I think it's fine the lede has this, stated as "approximately", without needing a cite, if in the next section or two all the details of wavelength are fully stated and cited. After all, the equivalent info is in the infobox anyway. Just my opinion, of course.)
In summary, I suggest ending this over-broad RfC, then addressing the lede issues independently, leaving decision on cites for each issue until resolved, and finally discussing remaining individual lede statement/cite based on the unique conditions for each statement. --A D Monroe III(talk) 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red. 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:

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) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

change colour to color Hesheweit (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See this content guideline. We don't change spellings from British English to American English or vice-versa without good reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello! There is a mistake in the introduction: "It is a primary color in the RGB color model and the CMYK color model, and is the complementary color of cyan." Red is complementary to cyan in RGB, and in CMYK mode it is opposite to Green. Let's teach correctly! Thanks. Dado Motta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dado.motta (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation for the "citation needed" prompt is available

There is a "citation needed" prompt in the first paragraph of the "Military uses" section. I have found the appropriate citation for it:

  • Korkolis, M. (July 1986). "APP-6 Military Symbols For Land Based Symbols" (PDF). alternatewars.com.
  • {{cite web |last1=Korkolis |first1=M. |title=APP-6 Military Symbols For Land Based Symbols |url=https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/NATO_Symbols/APP-6.pdf |website=alternatewars.com |format=PDF |date=July 1986}}

The citation is already used on the NATO Joint Military Symbology Wiki page. I would add this here myself, but the page is protected.

Sorry for the hassle,
--Light Code (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, absolutely no hassle, Light Code. Sam Sailor 13:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

General citation refurbishing

Currently I am checking all of the citations in this article. I am remaking all simple <ref> citations into their scripted counterparts. At the same time I try to add more relevant info if it is not already there. If needed, I also add archived versions. All of the information that is correct will stay as it was, including the date that the citation was added.

The biggest change I am going to do within citations is grouping all of the citations corresponding to Bibliography into single citation entries. That way it is possible to significantly reduce the number of citations. The page number that the citation is referring to in that sentence / paragraph is going to be displayed using the rp template. I would suggest other contributors to try using this template instead of creating multiple citations regarding the same work.
As for the Bibliography itself, even though it is going to be a duplicate of the citation entries, I think it should stay as it is. It is a shorter list of the most important works that this article was based on.

Light Code (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Red is the color of blood and all periods. Hello--wdbhjhjb (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2019 (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. Cannolis (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Photograph

I think it would be more correct to have a picture like that in the red article. What does everyone else think? Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs)

Is there anything off

Is there anything off about the article, referring to blood as the first color of red? Speling12345 (talk) 7:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

In section 6 "In Religion" or section 14 "Superstition" there should be a section about Paganism and/or Wicca. A bulletin could be placed stating "In modern Pagan and Wiccan religions, red is representative of the Root Chakra, the Chakra that grounds us to the world. It also is representative of energy, passion and courage. It is believed that when we don't have enough red in our lives we become fearful and lazy, and when we have too much we become angry, agitated and demanding" [1] Gagehannan (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Gagehannan (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The source provided does not appear to be particularly reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wiccanwideweb.com/blogs/the-metaphysical-properties-of/the-color-red

Merge from History of red

First, colors don't have history, so that article really should be History of red in human culture or such. The topic is interesting, but I am unsure it warrants a stand-alone article, and I think readers will be best served if this is integrated here. Also, this article talks about this topic in many sections, to WP:POVFORK is also an issue. Really, the difference is that the new article presents a chronological overview, while the old one here provides an overview by topic. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Piotrus, though I'm unsure if History of red in human culture would be necessary as a standalone article either... it could be just under a heading in the Red page. Best wishes, WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC) :)
(Oh yeah, also, please ping me if you respond. Thanks. WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC))
I have created history of red from the content from red because it was too long and according to Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style, it had to be spitted into sub-articles. So, please remove the merge request from both articles.--Freshman404Talk 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, aight Freshman404. WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with the idea that this article is only about the optics color itself; it's also about the history of the color, and its role in culture. That's an integral part of the article, and the reason why it got so many readers. The article should not be broken up. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2020

208.138.22.159 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Red is one of the most favorite colors in the world. Judging that it has a bright opacity which attracts people

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-Primates seeing red

The explanation of the effects of Dichromacy is incorrect.

Red objects won't appear grey to a dichromat but rather a dark yellow depending on the distance to the absorption maximum of the yellow cones. Light with wavelengths greater than the absorption maximum of the yellow cones (i.e. light that appears orange or red to humans) will still appear yellow to a dichromat but darker because of the reduced absorption in this region. Sufficiently long wavelengths will have no absorption and thus look black. The human analoge is red objects that emit wavelengths greater than the absorption maximum of the red cones of humans. These wavelengths appear dark red or black to humans but not grey.

It is however true that green objects will appear grey to a dichromat because the green wavelengths fall in the area between the absorption maxima of the yellow and blue cones which are the complementary colors of a dichromat (with blue-yellow vision). Since a dichromat can distinguish only two colors, a mixture of light of these colors will appear white, grey or even black depending depending on the overlap of the absorption spectra of the blue and yellow cones respectively.

SkriVanTek (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RED IS NOT A COLOR

red is not a color the eye sees it but it really don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:4300:C020:4E8:CA07:A888:F140 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

I would like all the words that say 'color' to be changed to 'colour'. Tajemina (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

✗ Not done To quote the header of this very page: This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, i just find American English kinda disgusting Tajemina (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Change:

Red is the color at the long wavelength end of the visible spectrum of light, next to orange and opposite violet.

To:

Red is the color at the long wavelength end of the visible spectrum of light, next to orange and opposite violet. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:OVERLINK
EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of section on history with discussion or consensus

The entire section on the history of red was removed without any discussion, and moved to a separate article. That is not at all the way that Wikipedia works. It should be put back where it was.SiefkinDR (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Questions

You should take out the editing mode because if you only have a couple pages protected then why have any protected 72.34.4.204 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why some pages are protected is because they could have information that is truthful, that a certain page has been vandalised many times, etc. Just because some pages are protected, doesn't mean every page needs to be protected as well. The 'COVID-19 pandemic' article has pages protected because they don't want anyone to vandalise the article. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The color that attracts attention

I did a brief search of the literature, and was unable to find any studies that support the claim, "Surveys show it is the color most frequently associated with visibility, proximity, and extroverts." Given that the citation needed tag has been there for 4 years, I suggest the sentence be removed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the sentence was more of 'peoples opinion' than an actual study. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The picture of a Northern Cardinal should link to Northern Cardinal, not Cardinal (bird) . 70.30.104.62 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Red Blue Green Light Pink Lime Aqua

XX-10 XX-35 XX-60 XXE-1 XXE-22 XXV-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.89.100.122 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 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)

Edit request

Add that red is associated with hunger 92.249.247.166 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red/Archive_1&oldid=1231092123"