|WikiProject Color||(Rated NA-class)|
Merge with Cerulean
This overlaps a lot with cerulean, but technically cerulean blue is a pigment with a specific shade, while "cerulean" is a broader term for sky color (according to OED). So I can't make up my mind whether we should merge the two, and if so, under which name. Stan 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- True, but since the modern word cerulean derives from the pigment name , I think the content here would be fine there. I'll look at integrating these at some point, but it might be a while. Cerulean blue can become a redirect to cerulean. (I considered merging cerulean to here rather than vice-versa and rejected the idea.) CoyneT 04:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, after snooping around a bit, I'm changing my vote on this. The dictionaries which have distinct entries for both terms (including an unabridged I have here at home) seem to universally break down as noted by Stan above: that is, that "cerulean blue" is a specific pigment of blue color while "cerulean" is a color ranging from greenish blue to blue. Therefore, it seems to me that these should be separate articles.
This is oddly affirmed by wiki itself, as cerulean is linked by color; while cerulean blue is linked by pigment (The link within "pigment" predated my cerulean blue article; all I did was start the article.)
So I think this is what should happen: The pigment references in "cerulean" (that it is a pigment and items related to its being a pigment) should be moved here, and vice versa, making cerulean into an article specifically on the color (as in the beige article) and this article specifically on the pigment. The articles can then be cross-linked. CoyneT 23:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, that would work. Andros 1337 23:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You mention the link from pigment. For some reason, that link is dead. And, yet, here we are. Is this merely a capitalization issue? Cerulean Blue; Cerulean blue. It seems the names of the other pigment articles are Always Capitalized. If this is the case, I suggest this article conform to that system, or, preferably, work with both forms. --Tellybelly 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is the word "permanent" linked to the article on fugitive pigments when it means the exact opposite? Do we not have an article on permanent pigments? (Obviously not.) --Phil | Talk June 29, 2005 16:21 (UTC)
- The concept of fugitive/permanent pigments are the mirror images of the same property, which is really "lightfastness". But I didn't want to move the fugitive pigment article because it is linked by several articles. So I linked the phrase permanent pigments to the fugitive article so it could explain the difference between fugitive and permanent. It seemed lame to create a "permanent pigments" article that would (in essence) say, "Permanent pigments are not fugitive pigments." CoyneT talk 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me start with the disclaimer. I am not an artist, color junkie, or even a competent computer user. Now for the message: Those color coordinates seem off to me. The color at http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/aboutus.asp?idArticle=65&idPressRelease=52 is closer to what is in my head.
- Sorry, I can no longer see the link (went away). But the coordinates on the article page were from this page, averaged as best I could manage to #2A52be. Now there is a swatch on the article page itself, and I averaged it, too; it seems to be #20587f. This seems much to green (to me) to be consistent with the original artistic value of the color, which was its absence of green. I don't know; I can't find an official triad anywhere. CoyneT talk 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)