Talk:RYB color model

Revisionist negativity

@Jaspergeli: – It's not necessary to "paint" RYB as a broken and obsolete system as you have been doing in your recent edits, such as swapping in a color-mixing chart in which blue and yellow do not mix to green. Stick to presenting what RYB is, not denigrating it for what it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you double check?

Is the color between blue and yellow not green?

RYB aren't equidistant colors, I'm stating facts not lies. The color model I made is strictly calculated and blended. Even if you mix RYB yourself, you will end up having a brown mixture, not black, because theoretically, those colors aren't the appropriate colors to make one. This undid revision triggers a color theory war because you have a bias for RYB, even if you have a bias, you still can't deny that they can't make black because they are not equidistant. If you logically think why blue and yellow creates green (specifically dark green), is that the blue already contains cyan. The blue that is used in RYB color model is actually more azure (R - 0, G - 63, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 191, Y - 0) than blue, not the real blue (R - 0, G - 0, B - 255 or C - 255, M - 255, Y - 0).

No part of my edit said or implied that RYB is a broken and obsolete system. Other revisionists even state RYB is a historical set of primary colors and you removed their revisions. Then why did you name this argument as "Revisionist negativity"? There is nothing wrong with my color model, The primary colors are still red, yellow, and blue while the secondary colors are still green, violet, and orange. However, as I said I'm not the only one (if I am the one) who denigrates. Why won't you also comment on the other revisionists who called RYB a historical set of primaries? I did not denigrate or underestimate RYB but you did overestimate the capabilities of RYB by stating what it cannot really do.

Check out this comparison between the two. This is the earlier one before I made the color model: [[1]]

The real color you will end up mixing blue and yellow is very dark yellow (R - 63, G - 63, B - 0 or C - 191, M - 191, Y - 255). In subtractive color principle, which uses the CMY color model, yellow and blue will make very dark yellow. Here's the demonstration:

With equal amounts you will have these: Blue: 1× cyan and 1× magenta Yellow: 2× yellow

1× cyan + 1× magenta + 1× yellow = 3× black Add 1× black to the remaining 1× yellow then you will get 2× dark yellow Add the remaining 2× black to 2× dark yellow then you will get 4× very dark yellow

These sites help me mix color models RGB and CMY: [[2]] [[3]]

So before you criticize my revisions, make sure you really checked out first what article are you on and know its principles. Jaspergeli (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don't understand what Dicklyon means when he says "blue and yellow do not mix to green", the new chart appears to have the appropriate overlap as green. As for Jaspergeli's response above: Red, yellow, blue are hues, the claims about mixtures are ambiguous because there are many lights and pigments with those hues. Mixing doesn't have much meaning if you are using hue names as color categories. I am not sure how you can make the claims you are making without referring to specific color models, lights, pigments etc.Maneesh (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are only two principles, namely, light and pigment. Light hues mix lighter while pigment hues mix darker. Paints, crayons, and inks have hues that mix darker mixture, therefore, they are pigments, thus, they all follow the subtractive color principle, particularly the CMY color model. Basically, all work the same, more hues mix, the darker the mixture is. The brown mixture that RYB create is the fact that something is wrong with the primaries. The hues are not equally distributed among the primaries which makes them less versatile. The result of the black mixture of the CMY is the indication that the hues are equally distant from each other. All medium basically work the same, as they all have colors, duh? As long as you use the exact colors as one shows. Smith131072 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean that in the picture above, the typical green that you get by mixing blue and yellow in an RYB system is a much lighter and greener green than this ugly dark color. As for the "equidistant" things, it's about the color wheel appropriate to the system, not distances in some other space. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, what is a "typical" green? What is an "RYB system"? Your use of "ugly" seems quite subjective. Is a palette of oil paints with (say) venetian red, a dark/pale yellow ochre and iron cobalt chromite black spinel, an RYB system? If so, it's easy to mix a dark green with that sort of palette (their are many other sets of oil paints that would probably do the same). My point is that "mixing" and "parts" only mean something in terms of a specific mathematical color space, lights or pigments. What about an RYB system specifies this? RYB color wheels seem to be circular arrangements of color categories, represented with fairly chromatic colors but they don't seem to be saying thing about results of mixing and amounts (which are, obviously, dependent on specific pigments, their tinting strengths even color matching context etc).Maneesh (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to formulate a mathematical/colorimetric model of the RYB color model, you better do it in a way that comes close to how this system is typically used, taught, and portrayed. Better yet, find such a model in a source. I'm not at all partial to RYB, being a color scientist (among other things) myself. I just don't want to see this system force-fitted to an inappropriate colorimetric straightjacket. Let's portray what it is, neutrally, and not ding it for what it's not (which is a modern colorimetric additive or subtractive model). Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed that formulating RYB as a precise model is something I wanted to do? I can't understand why you are telling me what I had "better do". I can't interpret what you are saying in the earlier message without RYB being more precisely defined. I've never seen such a precise formulation of RYB, not have I seen it used in any painting/art class that I have taken. I *have* used a limited palette with red, yellow and blue pigments *along with white*. No one credible I know or have listened to has called that "RYB" (that wouldn't make sense), or made predictions about color mixing using an "RYB model". As best as I can tell, RYB just means using red yellow and blue pigments. There does not seem anything particularly precise about it, I think the article should reflect that. Handprint does a great job synthesizing historical claims about "material trichromacy", but there is no single thing called "RYB", if there is I don't know what it is used for or does. Indeed handprint tell us 'no historical source prior to the 18th century that starts with three "primary" or "primitive" colors '. So just what is RYB other than the mere use of red, yellow and blue pigments to mix other pigments along with a loose set of (EDIT: historical and modern) misconceptions that seem to be taught in school/sell color wheels that have no apparent use or validity in terms of colorimetry?Maneesh (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring more to what Jaspergeli seems to be trying to do with his image. He claims to have picked primaries and made a color model with the help of some online calculators. Not sure what he did really. I think your understanding of RYB as a pigment-mixing art and craft is about right. Maybe the title "color model" makes it seem too much like modern colorimetric models, which it is not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not use online calculators, I used formulas. What I just noticed is that the original picture shows that RYB overlap in the middle as black which is not possible. If you're an expert or at least have knowledge about RYB, you'll know that they can't create black in equal amounts. If may I ask you if you mix RYB colors in equal amounts, will they create black? This is the only thing that I wanted to point here. The original photo is misleading because RYB can't theoretically create black. If you want. Even if you lighten the blue and add more cyan in it to make the green not dark and "ugly" as you said, you will never create black. Even basic Crayola crayons will tell you dark green is created by mixing blue and yellow. Jaspergeli (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the three circle diagram is particularly meaningful in this context since RYB itself doesn't really have a whole lot of meaning. I think there is an implicit association to bright and saturated colors of those hues; but then 'mixing' doesn't mean anything if we are only talking about colors we are thinking of. If one wants to talk about specific pigments, we could make anything from a very dark to a very bright green (even if we just assume very saturated, pure, pigments). The diagram would make more sense if it was some sort of reference standard where things like "parts" are defined, but there are no standardized RYB models the way we have CMYK ones (e.g., FORGA). I think it makes more sense to only show RYB colors from notable sources (I am not sure if there are any past the historical ones). The idealized colorwheels currently shown don't make much sense to me. Yes, I can see some colors in a spectrographic order arranged in a circle.....so what? Are they saying anything in terms of pigment or light? Or just reminders of the sorts of diagrams we may have seen in grade school but don't carry much meaning?Maneesh (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A circle or wheel would be better than the overlapping circles here. You can look at lots of sources for what they mean, which is not usually a specific mixing model. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jaspergeli: I will remove the overlapping circle diagram as it doesn't refer to a mathematical color space, pigments or lights. I think the 'RYB color star' needs to go as well. Just seems to be a wheel with triangles. Nothing seems particularly standard about some of the color names (e.g., vermillion). Cool?Maneesh (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

See commons cat RYB for traditional RYB color wheels. It's not clear to me what primaries you started with exactly, or what mixture model you used, but's it's certainly not the RYB model. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

See? Your link already shows many images of RYB color model (except the misleading image) that don't happen to create black in the middle. If my image is not good enough for you, then I will use the image in your link, for the sake of the light and "beautiful" green. Jaspergeli (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

George Field has a pretty good 19th century explanation of the model. The evolution of thinking in the 18th century is discussed with lots of examples, such of which are RYB, at this source. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't see why Dicklyon has reinserted the diagram for Boutet's 12-color wheel. There is no special designation to red, yellow and blue in this diagram. They don't seem to be equally radially spaced as a "modern RYB color circle" (perhaps the only defining feature of an RYB color wheel vs. any color wheel), it isn't clear what secondary colors are here. This 1708 color wheel obviously resembles Newton's 1706 color wheel. What do either of these wheels have to do with RYB?Maneesh (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a color wheel in which R, Y, and B (Rouge, Jaune, and Blau) are equidistant, as in the RYB system. Why do you say they're not? Orange, Purple, and Green are labeled as the colors midway between. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The "rouge de feu" sure looks more red to me than "rouge". Which one is "red"?Maneesh (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not see any resolution to this. "Rouge de feu" is clearly a much redder red in the image of Boutet's color wheel, there is only "rouge de feu" in the 7 color version

Boutet's color wheels

. It's not obvious to me that RYB are equally spaced and the interpretation is not at all straightforward.Maneesh (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

peer-reviewed paper on RYB and traditional colour theory

As a color theorist with a PhD in color theory and application, I can attest to the importance of using an RYB color model that in no way reflects the colors of CMY. The RYB color model evolved in tandem with the hierarchical color categories and color constructs of traditional color theory. I have a peer-reviewed paper on this subject in press due for publication in the leading academic journal on color - Color Theory and Application. I'll add a link to this publication in due course - Zena O'Connor, PhD. User: Zenao1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenao1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Zenao1. Can you explain why, for instance, of all history of RYB as primary colors summarized in sources like Handprint, huvaluechroma, Gage, Shamey and Kuehni etc. I can't seem to find a thing called the "RYB Color Model"? RYB as primary colors certainly have a history perhaps most recently as a part of 'traditional color theory' that seems to be attributed to primarily to Itten in a number of places. I don't think Itten calls it an "RYB Color Model" and none of the historical references or summaries of those references call it that either. Maneesh (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi All & Maneesh, I'm happy to provide substantiation for the RYB colour model. I've just submitted a chapter (specifically on RYB color) for the 'Encyclopedia of Color Science and Technology' (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441980700) which will be published in due course. This chapter features a new RYB model that I developed specifically for the chapter using colours that link back to the theories from which RYB colour emerged. Not much has been written about the RYB colour model; hence, there's few sources of information and references about this particular model. In addition, while there's much written about RBG and CMYK, unfortunately, when the RYB model is mentioned, there is a distinct lack of clarity about this model and the branch of colour theory from which it evolved - traditional colour theory. Some may consider this "revisionist theory"; however, putting personal, subjective opinions aside, traditional colour theory as well as the RYB colour model had relevance within a particular context during the 20th century. If you'd like to find out more, check out my recently published, peer-reviewed paper in the journal Color Research and Application 'Traditional colour theory: A review' (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/col.22609). Also, I'm not sure why references are used that aren't from reputable peer-reviewed sources...? Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge, sources such as Handprint and David Briggs' huevaluechroma website do not feature peer-reviewed information and are essentially personal websites featuring personal opinions. Cheers, Zena Zenao1 Maneesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenao1 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a single instance of 'RYB color model' in your paper, can you confirm? The material in the paper (I haven't read it super carefully) seems to be the same narrative of history we find in MacEovy, Briggs, Shamey and Kuehni, Bollon, Gage etc. that is summarized in Primary_color#History (RYB as primary colors). Some of those sources are more detailed though, e.g., they explain why we can see black and white in d'Aguilón's diagram. You can see objections to handprint and huvaluechroma in primary color, but the fact is they are exceptionally comprehensive, very well sourced and cited in scholarly work (WP:UBO). I wouldn't, for instance, use MacEvoy's notions of 'hue purity' or 'material trichromacy' in a wp article (though they are quite sensible); but they both do an incredible job at organizing primary color science sources with respect to painting and they should be used/attributed for that.Maneesh (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an awfully puzzling sentence from your paper as well "...prior to the development of synthetic pigments, natural pigment colours were often unstable and chemical variations inhibited effective colour intermixture and colour fastness."...I can't see how that could possibly be true? Artists were effectively mixing color in long lasting paintings long long before the development of synthetic pigments. Lead white, yellow ochre, vermillion, carbon based black etc. are not at all 'unstable'. Many synthetic pigments are not at all colourfast. Maneesh (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to move page to Primary Colors under "History"

There are a lot of assertions in this article that need sources. There isn't any information in this article that isn't broadly captured by the underlying sources in primary colors cited in the history section. I still don't see any good evidence that the "RYB Color Model" is a concrete thing that makes predictions (like a model must) or that it is understood to mean the (exclusive) use of red, yellow and blue pigments as primary colors. Red, yellow and blue have certainly been called primary colors (sometimes with and without black and white) in the context of pigments and most prominently by color theorists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Explanations need to be a bit careful to make sure to explain the difference between primary colors and "primitive" colors from those 18th/19th century sources and not spill over into broader misconceptions about color during those centuries. I think the few extra names that are mentioned here can be integrated in about a paragraph in the primary color page. I think most of this page is captured between Briggs' huevaluechroma, MacEvoy's handprint and Mollon's paper. This page is really saying that some people considered red, yellow and blue primary colors (something like that they mix all, or a very useful large subset of, colors) and that's really a historical notion. I think it would then make sense to appropriately redirect there.Maneesh (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The RYB color model is not the kind of mathematical/predictive model you're looking for, until you interpret the red as a sort of magenta and the blue as near cyan; but it's still a color model, even though it doesn't fit well with modern color science. A merge makes no sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

? I really don't think anyone has pinned down the "red" in RYB to be sort of a magenta, who said that? It's not clear at all that any of the cited people in this article agree on what the "red" was in their claims about red, yellow and blue being primary or primitive colors. Nothing in the writing in this article suggests it. This article seems merely start with (unsourced) idea that "RYB Color Model" means "red, yellow and blue as primary colors". There is plenty of support for the latter in historical narratives and definitions from Itten; this is very reasonably discussed in the "primary color" article. Don't see anything in here that isn't, or couldn't be, there. Maneesh (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to pin it down. It's just that a sort of magenta (aka "process red" in printing [4] [5] [6]) fits your ideas of a color model better. There's no reason to kill this article or relegate it purely historical; many people still use RYB as their model of how colors combine. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I really have trouble understanding what your point is. Your links support the idea that magenta in printing is also called 'process red'. Sure. Is Itten's R in RYB actually magenta then? You are clearly saying in your first message that when the R in the RYB color model is a 'sort of magenta', then the RYB color model has the basic properties of a mathematical/predictive color model. Maneesh (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact I've added most of names in this article to primary color (which were already in sources anyway). I don't think there really is a material difference in the information in the history section in primary color and this page. They both describe the historical idea of red, yellow and blue as primary colors and describe essentially the same set of people.Maneesh (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Poor support for many assertions

These citation needed reasons were removed from the article and so they are being put here. I see no guidance for the citation needed tag that suggests the text in the reason field was 'crapping' up the article (the reasons I've provided seem very much in the style of examples). In any case:

• I see no occurrence of 'RYB' in the cite to Gage, how is it that it is being used to support the claim that "RYB (an abbreviation of red–yellow–blue) denotes the use of red, yellow, and blue pigments as primary colors in art and applied design."

• The RYB color model is claimed to have underpinned the color curriculum at a very long list of schools, no citation.

• There is a sentence about 'mixing' what are supposed to be exemplar colors (?). How do you mix exemplar colors? What convention says they do they mix to brown and not black?

• RYB as primary colors is claimed to have 'emerged at a time when access to a large range of pigments was limited by availability'. What time was this? Pliny says that yellow, read, black and white were the primary colors Apelles used (EDIT: and that this was somehow so much more righteous than the obscene number of pigments they had in Pliny's time). The 'first known instance of the RYB triad can be found in the work of Franciscus Aguilonius', Apelles surely had fewer colors than Aguilonius.

• When was augmenting RYB with black and white done in 'art and design education'. I mean, does 'design' mean any time anyone painted anything in history? We were certainly using black, white, red and yellow in paleolithic times.

• EDIT: And now this sentence: 'The RYB color model represents a conceptual color creation model that is not predictive color but indicative of simple hierarchical color classifications.' I can't tell what this even means.

• And now there is a picture of a hand colored partitioned triangle, the 'red' is more magenta and definitely has some blue in it, that doesn't match up with Itten's ideas of 'primary color' that are in the lede and not to be found in the body. The caption is absolutely opaque with "RYB color model". Maneesh (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have that particular Cage book, but others of his that I see online discuss red, yellow, and blue primary colors, without the RYB acronym. I took out the brown (not black) bit, since a mix of three primaries can make any sort of off-neutral color. A few select cn tags would be OK, but it craps up the article to put a whole raft of them while you're trying to destroy the article by merging it out of existence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Really doesn't address the points. Gage's book does discuss red yellow and blue in context of the complex history of the idea of primary colors in 'The Fortune of Apelles'. Is there any reliable source that supports the first sentence that 'RYB (an abbreviation of red–yellow–blue) denotes the use of red, yellow, and blue pigments as primary colors in art and applied design.'. Gage doesn't seem to in the cite that is there. That may be your opinion on cn tags, but it's natural that an article with a lot of unsupported assertions would need a lot of cn tags. 'Trying to destroy' is being a little melodramatic here, I've clearly put up a section in talk to suggest it which is what one generally does on wp.Maneesh (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can rewrite it better based on one of these many sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I've said really clearly above that the history section in primary color really does seem to subsume this article, which implies that I wouldn't rewrite it. The first sensible sources in your link is Itten, who is addressed in that history section. Aguilonius, Le Blon, Harris, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe are all described in detail in the best sources that the primary color article relies on, they fit very easily by inserting them in the history. The challenge is separating what a lot of is being said by some of these people against things like the ideas of Newton in general vs. what they were saying specifically about primary colors. But you have the same challenge in this article (which this article doesn't do an adequate job of addressing) since the RYB color model is defined in terms of RYB being primary colors. Once you sort out what exactly is being said in history about RYB and primary colors, you have sensible content for the history of primary colors and no need for this page.Maneesh (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent replies to very old discussions

I'm moving some recent responses to long-dead discussions here, while archiving the original conversations. Most of the original participants are not active anymore, and recent replies are out of context and likely to be lost if left mixed into the original topics. –jacobolus (t) 03:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to the 2005(?) discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § incorrect by what standard?:

RYB is first invented than CMY, but it is invented in the times when the people are ignorant. RYB is a custom-made model made by the primitive artists a long time ago, which we get used to and adapted by passing into many generations since this time while CMY, made by the expert scientists, use principles that make them more appropriate. That's why most people say RYB is the model that have the primary colors instead of CMY, which is more appropriate since it has a wider gamut and creates a perfect equilateral and equiangular triangle in our color vision range. Now, these kinds of topics/discussions/debates/disputes awakened many ignorant people from the fake things (or should I say worse things) provided by our ancient ancestors that's why people who vote for CMY continues to rise. It just means that we are innovating for the better. Though we can't make the believers of CMY a 100%, we still continue to spread the right word. Jaspergeli (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This perspective is too critical and misses important context. The most common red pigments were pink when thin, blue pigments were cyanish when thin, and fewer pigments were known. It's only natural that artists of olden times would have chosen RYB and it's still a useful model now. Rdococ1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In response to the 2007 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § Thinking logical:

“But then you are talking about RYBWK space, which is something different than the article.” …

I like that idea being as Paint’s 3 primary colors don’t really make White or blacK paint. So Black and White are pretty much 2 other Primary colors, along with Red, Yellow and Blue in RYB’s Color Model! 🙂

Then, the New Color System can be named the “WRYBK” color model and can use Base 16 (aka 0 - F) as codes for every color in its system, but from 0 - 15 instead of 0 - 255! 😊

Therefore, while the RGB Model uses Hex Codes looking like this … 00-00-00 (aka #000000) … I’m saying that the New WRYBK model should use Hex Codes looking like this … 0-0-0-0-0 (aka #00000)!

From there, I could have fun doing all the math with every color mixing in paint, and see if they add up to the correct answer of Hex Code # in WRYBK’s color wheel! 😉 Craig Lungren (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to the 2008 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § Color Standards

That may be true, but Hex Codes (HC) don’t need to be RGB only. The Hex Codes are Numbers of Base 16 really, and therefore HC are both RGB and RYB, not just one color model or the other. 🙂

Side Note: Do not just reply back to me, without actually thinking about Hex Codes first! Craig Lungren (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to the 2013 discussion Talk:RYB color model/Archive 1 § This "blue" is not #0000FF

For simple hexadecimal codes, blue and red should be the same volume between the RGB and RYB color systems. For example Blue is Hex Code #0000FF in both systems and Red is Hex Code #FF0000 in both systems. But Green itself is Hex Code #00FF00 in RGB system, while it is #00FFFF in the RYB system! That is just the way it works for me when using the Hexadecimal Numbers! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

RGB for computer displays has nothing to do with artists' paint colors, and hexadecimal codes should not be used for the latter. In computer RGB, the primaries are orangish-red, yellowish-green, and purplish blue. They are just called "R", "G", and "B" for convenience, but they are not close to the unique hues "red", "green", or "blue".

Artists' RYB is closer to the CMY colors used by printers, usually a red or purplish red, something reasonably close to unique yellow, and a greenish blue. –jacobolus (t) 00:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I would understand RGB system is used for computers and other stuff, while the RYB system is mostly used (and works) for paint, which makes sense that computer displays have nothing to do with the Paint’s primary colours. But the computer’s primary red should be just the same as Paint’s unique primary Red for convenience. The same thing should be for Blue and other colors. Hexadecimal codes are useful for RYB and better be used in both systems, following the same logic with their primary colors. There shouldn’t be any such rule that states “The Hexadecimal Base Number System can only be used for a single color model system. In this case ‘The RGB color model’”. I would personally find that dumb or ridiculous, especially if I want to compare colors between the RGB and RYB color models in Base 16.

Anyways, I will return to this topic soon! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As I continue, you said “RGB for computer displays has nothing to do with artists' paint color”, but I will also remind you that Hexadecimal Codes has nothing to do with computers’ display color either. Hexadecimal Codes are only related to one thing: Numerals! And all Base Number Systems have everything to do with Numbers. Hexadecimal’s single digits (in particular) are having to do with “Base 16” only but can be used as codes for many things (such as Multiple Color Models, not just one)!

To every person(including you) that likes it or not, Hexadecimal …

“#FF0000” is Red in both RGB and RYB color models!

“#FFFF00” is Yellow in RGB and Orange in RYB!

“#00FF00” is Green in RGB and Yellow in RYB!

“#00FFFF” is Cyan in RGB and Green in RYB!

“#0000FF” is Blue in both RGB and RYB color models!

“#FF00FF” is Magenta in RGB and Purple in RYB!

“#808080” is Gray in both RGB and RYB color models!

And while …

“#000000” is Black in RGB, so can “it” be White in RYB!

“#FFFFFF” is White in RGB, so can “it” be Black in RYB!

And all of that Hex Code information is just how it is for Logic, working in comparison between the 2 color systems! 🙂 Craig Lungren (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, what you are saying here "should" happen is simply incorrect and false. Perhaps more importantly for Wikipedia purposes, it is not based on "reliable sources" and thus entirely inappropriate to include in Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 06:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice try Dude. But it’s not about Wikipedia. What I am saying here “should be real”, is SIMPLY CORRECT and TRUE! Not False. This is not based on sources of any kind, but it is not entirely inappropriate to include in Wikipedia. Thus, Yes Wikipedia sure can stick to its own purposes, but it is Totally Appropriate for Wikipedia, and the Hex Codes should be found for the RYB color model in Google, no matter what. There’s no reason for Hex Codes to be used for RGB color model only, and thus I do make sense, whether you think so or not. 🙂

The Statement “This “blue” is not #0000FF” is simply incorrect and false. Really, I simply think about Logic compared to you, which wins over your inappropriate message sent to me at the latest. Craig Lungren (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia sure can stick to its own purposes – Great. Note that talk pages here are only intended for discussions of concrete improvements to the article / a place to work through disputes about article content. New research, speculation, and miscellaneous other discussion belong at some other venue. –jacobolus (t) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)