Talk:Scheele's green

Scheele's Green not the first to contain arsenic

I removed the claim that "Scheele's green was the first pigment to contain arsenic". Even though the reference claims that this is true, arsenic pigments such as Orpiment have been used since at least the middle ages. See for example pg 176 of "The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting" by Daniel V. Thompson and published by Dover in 1956.

Perhaps a different claim was meant, such as "Scheele's green was the first synthetic pigment to contain arsenic" or that "Scheele's green was the first green pigment to contain arsenic" but arsenic pigments for painting and glassmaking are well known from before the middle ages. Jeff Dahl 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-adenosyl methionine is a metabolite, not an enzyme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.44.81 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tragedy for an article about a pigment color not to have any actual color represented on the page. ForumRoleplay (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scheele's Green. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.borthwick/LADAS/prog/01_napoleon.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302034606/http://www.npi.gov.au:80/database/substance-info/profiles/27.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/27.html

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) 20:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell you gonna have an article about a pigment color without having any pictures of the color?

I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.192.85 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the exact same thing. Like if the Rainbow page thought it was gauche to actually have a photo. -82.1.109.96 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the following image File:Fashions_for_May_1868,_Plate_1,.jpg is of a dress of the right color, but a better source seems to be needed. sverdrup (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a challenge to find a copyright-free image of a pigment that has not been used for so long. Normally one can just find some of the pigment and take a picture of it. I'm looking for one though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2clone (talk • contribs) 05:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Note that there is a color coordinate based example of the color of the pigment, and to call attention to it (as I have to admit I didn't see it at first either) I modified the text of the first paragraph to note the hex code for the color. It is possible, because of the instability of the pigment, that the color coordinates provide a better indication of the color of the pigment when as it was used in the 19th century, over photos of pigment taken today after over a century of aging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2clone (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Written

First paragraph: "which in the past was used in some paints, but has since..." Really?? "In the past"?? Which past? What if I read this in 2019? The past is 1995. Then? What if I read this in 2179? Maybe it was used up until 2019?? "Has since..."?? Same deal! 978 BC? 2020 AD?? PS: I came here to read about it being toxic and killing people. It should say so upfront center... in THE FIRST FEW LINES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.137.210 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the first paragraph to include many of the details requested, specifically the time frame of it's use (early to mid 19th century) and the decline in its use after the 1860's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2clone (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page from "Scheele's Green" to lowercase "Scheele's green"

Hi, this seems uncontroversial given the capitalization of Paris green and widespread appearance of lowercase g in most sources [1][2][3] (albeit not all sources I spotted on my journey through three pages of Google results [4][5]). Sometimes people bring up Google ngrams as evidence of common capitalization, so here's the graph showing "Scheele's green" is more than twice as common as "Scheele's Green" (at least twice as common, possibly more since some instances of the capitalized variety were probably in titles). I'm gonna go for it, but if I'm out of line or sound like I've huffed Scheele's green paint, please let me know :-) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]