Talk:Magenta/Archive 1

It says in this article that magenta wraps between red and blue in the color wheel. However, the colors at the edges of the spectrum are red and violet. Any clarifications?? Georgia guy 00:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The spectrum shown in the article is incorrect, as it shows a real violet — but violet is extraspectral too! This is probably both an overcorrection of the imperfect blue used by standard monitors and a reflection of the mistake to equate the spectrum with the colours of the rainbow, which is an extreme simplification--MWAK 05:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Show that the colors of the spectrum are not the same as the colors of the rainbow. Georgia guy 13:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simply look at a rainbow and it will show you :o).--MWAK 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my defintion, violet is spectral, with a wavelength of about 400nm, see also [1]. --Pjacobi 07:06, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

If we define it as such; it's correct — by definition :o). But others define the same hue as "blue", the blue referred to in "wraps between blue and red". One cause of confusion. And the hue in the spectrum illustrated in the article is not the 400 nm one. Can't you feel the red vibes? ;o)--MWAK 09:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm red-green blind. --Pjacobi 09:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

~:o)--MWAK 05:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most definitions, including that given by Hunt's 2004 book The Reproduction of Color, (as cited here) consider “violet” to include both the edge of the visible spectrum, and some extra-spectral colors. Hunt calls the range between 400nm and the complement of 565nm "bluish purple" or "violet". --jacobolus (t) 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 2 color names exactly the same?? This article equates them, but there are some sources, such as Crayola Crayons, that do not. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 21:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that they are not the same at all. I think Fuschia is a lighter shade of Magenta. --WillDarlock 17:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what color (using RGB coordinates)?? Georgia guy 17:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing it to the Fuschia hybrid plant and some other fuschia examples, the RGB I get is around (244, 0, 161). You can see it's a little pinker and lighter than Magenta. --WillDarlock 19:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The commercial colour name Fuchsia is used for a much more saturated colour — and it's the origin of the common usage.--MWAK 05:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I've known my entire life, fuschia is basically 255-0-255, while Magenta would be closer to 255-0-128. If you open up MSPaint, the "pink" (right by orange) is magenta, and the "light purple" (by blue) is fuchsia. Matt Yeager 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your MSPaint is a ghost link. Does the program have an article?? If so, please create a re-direct. Georgia guy 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! (If you have Windows, just click on Start, Run, then type in MSPaint). Matt Yeager 01:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is it called CMYK rather than CFYK?? Georgia guy 01:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. I don't know--that's how I learned it though, and Crayola agrees with me, as far as I can remember. A Google search returns a wide range of colors for both of them. Matt Yeager 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchsia cannot be 255-0-255. That is Magenta. The entire purpose of Magenta is that it was created a Processing color as one of the first aniline dyes. It is a spectral color that is NOT natural, as you have to bend the visible spectrum around to combine red and blue.

Fuchsia is the color representing the Fuchsia flower. It is clearly a distinct visible color as Fuchsia has much less purple quality to it and more of a richer pink.

This entire debate could have been avoided if the original web designers stuck to a convention of naming primary web colors as Magenta. Instead, someone, I have no idea who, decided to stick fuchsia in there. --WillDarlock 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchsia generally is the more "pure [non-yellowish] red" of CYMK printing, and thus corresponds closely to 255-0-128 or at most 255-0-192. Before the era of computers for the general public, "magenta" always seemed to denote a more bluish deep pink, so I would say this was FF00FF! I always wondered why they used both "magenta" and "fuschsia" for that color. They should change "fuchsia" to FF0080 or FF00C0. Likewise, there is confusion as "cyan" refers to both the greenish 00FFFF of the screen, as well as the approximate 00C0FF of print ink.Eric B 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. While you're battling it out which name stands for what shade today, I think it's important to keep in mind, when and why these names were created, and to also inform the reader what shades they originally stood for. Please cf. below my comment on History... --BjKa 07:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The color on the right below referred to as #FF0090 is similar to a color known as amaranth (which is slightly redder) because it is the color of the flower of the amaranth plant. There is a book called The Dictionary of Color by Maerz and Paul, published in 1964, in which this color is specifically called "amaranth". Before personal computers became common, this book was the standard reference on color. This book is still widely available in many libraries. Keraunos 11:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section. It appears to have to do with the meanings of the word magenta, not the color. Georgia guy 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion, cosmetology, art, food and parapsychology subsections of magenta in human culture appear to be related to the colour and not the word. PaleAqua 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this criticism, I restored the sections mentioned above that have to do only with the color and I added a new section called astronomy which tells about magenta brown dwarfs. Keraunos 08:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)↔ It is important to keep the [color] in Human Culture section because all the other major colors have it. Keraunos 08:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Color#Shades_of..._Subsections. PaleAqua 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a pure chroma on the color wheel between violet and red. Magenta lies on the color wheel between violet and rose, and therefore it is a pure chroma." Obviously one of these sentences should be removed. I haven't done so, lest there be strong opinions on which one it should be. Also, why are there two swatches (with the same HTML colour) next to each other? I've seen this on other colour pages, too. -Ahruman 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The double color looks like a "my template's cooler than yours!" war... they're both gone as of now. And I fixed the sentence. Come on! Be bolder! ;) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to a Website which says:
1859 saw the arrival of François-Emmanuel Verguin's fuchsine and Edward Chambers Nicholson's roseine, known soon after as magenta. [Philip Ball, Bright Earth: Art and the Invention of Color (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2001), 214.] If someone could confirm this, it should go into the article. Me for example, I looked up Magenta because I wanted to know what my laser printer had to do with an Italian town. And I find the historic part of the article a bit underrepresented to say the least. --BjKa 07:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strips of color in the comparison chart, which generally duplicate the colors provided at the bottom via the templates, are found now only in magenta, cyan, and indigo of all the common color names. I propose we remove it from here, as it's ugly, strange, and duplicative. Any objections or support? Dicklyon 04:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to removing these charts. I created all of them and I think they are beautiful. They are not duplicative--the Color Comparison Chart displays the shades of a particular color in approximate order of their shades (from the lightest at the top to most saturated in the middle to the darkest at the bottom) rather than in alphabetical order as in the Shades Template at the bottom of the article. The purpose of these Color Comparison Charts is to enable the Wikipedia user to more easily pick out a particular color which they may need for a particular use. For example, if someone is going to design a website, repaint a room, paint their house, or purchase a new automobile, they can look at the Color Comparison Charts and choose which color is best for or is closest to the color they need. It is much easier to do this when the colors are arranged in order of their shade instead of being arranged in alphabetical order. In addition, they display colors such as Crayola colors which may not be in the regular color articles and thus allow the user a greater selection of colors to choose from. I am restoring all of them with a short explanation as to their purpose and use. Keraunos 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user wants to pick a color scheme for a house or similar, they should first use a color space such as L*a*b*, in which colors can be precisely specified. But second and more importantly, they should examine and compare actual paint chips. If they are going to design a website, they can use something like Adobe's kuler or similar. If they're going to purchase an automobile, they should examine cars in the possible colors, as no image on a computer screen is going to be an adequate representation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of arbitrary proprietary color names. --jacobolus (t) 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this bit of discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. Anyway, what does "order of their shade" mean, exactly? Color is not one-dimensional. It seems to me that they are roughly ordered by lightness, with colorfulness and hue ordered arbitrarily. I'm not sure why this is a particularly logical ordering. --jacobolus (t) 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Yeager just changed the magenta in the lead, which was the fuchsia-colored one, to a different magenta. What should we be using here? With what reference source? Dicklyon 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best source, imho, is the simplest. Google returns (mostly) ff0080-type results. See also this page. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we choose should be referenced to an authoritative source. A google hit count is not an authoritative source, and most random web pages are also not. Dicklyon 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we want to use an "ink-color" type magenta, not a ff00ff-like one. The current infobox hasa decent one. But it would really be good to show some images of magenta objects that show some range. --jacobolus (t) 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but whatever magenta we give color coordinates for needs to have a source. Dicklyon 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The X11 color list gives magenta as FF00FF, not FF0080. This is the color normally considered magenta because it is exactly halfway between red and blue at 300 degrees on the hsv color wheel. The ink color magenta is already listed in the article as FF0090 from a CMYK source. There is no harm in listing FF0080 as a variation of magenta (if it can be linked to a source), but FF00FF is the color that is considered magenta by web designers and should be in the color box at the beginning of the article. Keraunos 08:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since X11 is the only cited source, I changed the numbers to be consistent with it. And I generalized the description. Dicklyon 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's a good idea. X11 Magenta is completely different from the meaning of "magenta" for centuries before. I think the X11 guys needed a name for FF00FF, and just picked "magenta" as the first thing they could think of. I agree it's good to have a source, but the X11 colors aren't a very good source for this, IMO. We could try converting 100% magenta ink color (maybe like from some SWOP CMYK space) to sRGB using ColorSync or some other CMM, and then source that as the color for "Magenta". But really this is a reason that I don't like swatches for such articles: "Magenta" doesn't refer to a particular color, so much as a range of colors. --jacobolus (t) 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HSV color wheel is nearly useless, because it spaces things out according to a particular RGB color space, and has little to do with human perception. In any case, I don't think there are any magenta pigments close to the lightness and colorfulness of FF00FF magenta, even if the hue isn't *too* far off. In any case, just as "green" isn't 00FF00, magenta shouldn't be FF00FF, based only on what "web designers" say. --jacobolus (t) 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any other sourced definition. But this RGB/HSV one is the only one we've been given so far. Just need to be clear that we're talking about the X11 magenta when we use it. Dicklyon 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in Matt Yeager's color under "Additional Variations of Magenta" and titled it "Inkjet Magenta". I measured the color shown on the web site source (which I listed as the source) with my Macintosh Digital Color Meter and the reading was hex code=DD147C and RGB code=221,20,124. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Keraunos 07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to listing your measurements; several of us have complained about this before. It's called WP:OR. Dicklyon 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on using Google here. I think Google result counts can be helpful in choosing which usage of two sourced pieces of information to consider most common, for example what to title this article if majenta were also a dictionary-referenced alternate spelling. But I agree with Dicklyon that they aren't a reliable source for the actual piece of information. -Agyle 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of suggestions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Principles is that color values (as in an infobox) should be used only when there is a reliable standard for those values. X11 certainly is a standard. However, magenta existed before X11, and refers to a broad range of colors, historically different from X11's magenta. Because of that, I think an X11-sourced color infobox should be used only to illustrate X11 magenta," not magenta in general. I don't think X11 or any other a color infobox is appropriate at the beginning of this article, since there is no single, authoritative source for the color values. Finding photographs of magenta-colored things (flowers, dyed clothes, etc.), the way this lemon picture illustrates green, seems to be the recommended approach. -Agyle 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the reference for magenta not being a spectral color, as the previous source was not what I'd consider reliable. In case there's any question on this, http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/about says "So is all the content made up? Not at all, it's a complete mixture. Some of the articles are utter drivel but we also highlight real research and real news stories,...." I'm not sure if that's dry British humor or they're serious, but either way it doesn't seem reliable. :-) -Agyle 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the section contains interesting information, I don't think it offers any sources that would be considered reliable. (See WP:RS for an explanation of the "reliable sources" policy). Does anyone think any of the citations in this section qualify as reliable? If not, are there any objections to removing the section?

Some of the information could be retained if a reliable source is there or can be found. I've looked a bit myself, but haven't found anything yet. "T-Mobile magenta" seems to be more commonly called "T-Mobile pink," whether it's correct or or not, and I didn't find any reliable source that says either is actually a color name.

There are some references within the article to other Wikipedia articles, like X11 colors or List of Crayola crayon colors, but I don't think Wikipedia articles should ever be considered reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense) themselves, even if those articles may cite their own reliable sources. -Agyle 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; take them all out, and allow them back only when sourced. Sources like "This color was sampled directly from the image of the actual colored pencil in a picture of a set of Venus colored pencils for sale on eBay" don't count. Dicklyon 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find citations for Crayola's Hot Magenta, which I added, as well as some support for Deutsche Telekom/T-Mobile's magenta, which I only added in passing in the Hot Magenta subsection so far. Researching their legal grab of use rights of the color magenta makes me want to crush my T-Mobile phone; I'll try to remember WP:NPOV. ;-) -Agyle 10:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Crayola's hot magenta is really only relevant in the context of the list of crayola colors. I don't think it belongs at this page: there's nothing about it that changed people's opinions or usage of magenta; it's just a random part of an arbitrary list of colors. We could just as well add the exact coordinates of every art supply from every manufacturer named "magenta". The name "hot magenta" is a marketing name, and I've seen no evidence that it's in wider use beyond crayola. --jacobolus (t) 17:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it's lame to mention every Crayola color in each color article where it might fit. It's undue weight on one manufacturer's list. Dicklyon 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Colour trademark for more on that topic. It's not a t-mobile or magenta issue. Dicklyon 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that exact coordinates shouldn't be supplied for Crayola's Hot Magenta; I'm new to color articles, and left it in assuming that's the way things are done, but after further reading I don't think it's appropriate.

I agree that Hot Magenta is a Crayola-specific name, but don't think mentioning Crayola's magenta colors is unreasonable or gives Crayola undue weight over other colored art medium suppliers. In the US, Crayola is very well known brand, and carries a long history, making it more significant than, say, the Venus Paradise pencils of the 1950s-1960s. Google News archives (admittedly with a recent-news bias) lists 22,500 articles referencing Crayola, including several that mention "magenta," and "hot magenta," versus 123 referencing Venus Paradise, none of which mention "sky magenta." There are competitors to Crayola in the crayon industry like Rose Art Industries, and well-known brands within the art industry like PrismaColor, but I don't think they approach Crayola's significance, and I found no articles mentioning other suppliers that also mentioned their magenta color. Crayola can garner news coverage in the US (albeit trivial news) with a color introduction, the way M&M can with candy colors. I don't think hot magenta is worthy of a subsection as it has now, but I was seeing what could be sourced from the existing "Variations" section, and I don't think mentioning Crayola's magenta and/or Hot Magenta overrepresents their importance compared to other material in this article. I'd welcome some other opinions, whether they're for or against inclusion of this info.

If there's news about hot magenta worth mentioning, we should do that. But to list every crayola color in the 48 or so articles where they might fit would seem to be undue. Dicklyon 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the sentences on the trademark issue, I was trying to supply context on why Crayola's trademark is significant, and hoped to segue or combine that with a discussion of T-Mobile's magenta, but I see your point that it doesn't fit as written, and will remove all but the fact that the trademark was filed. -Agyle 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You all are making all this too complicated. There is no reason to delete such a beautiful color as hot magenta. You should remember the saying don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good Keraunos 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I pointed out that it's mentioned in the news because you said "It's undue weight on one manufacturer's list." I was showing why more weight over other manufacturers seemed warranted. Personally I think Crayola's changes can reflect cultural significance, even if insignificant themselves. But we've got two votes against, and one to keep it for the dubious reason that it's beautiful (sorry keraunos! ;-). So I'll delete it, and someone can re-add if it seems appropriate as the article evolves. Here's the sentence:

• Crayola introduced their trademarked Hot Magenta color in 1972 in a boxed set of eight crayons called "Fluorescent 8."^[1][2] -Agyle 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magenta is in three "Shades" categories: red, pink, and violet. I don't disagree with their inclusion in those categories, and I don't think inclusion in a category is something that requires a reliable source. However, by showing information about the other members in the categories, rather than just including text saying magenta is in those categories, it means the Magenta article is now showing unsourced material, like Thistle (color) (which has no references) being a shade of violet. There are nearly 100 color names and swatches listed at the end of the article. It takes a large amount of space, and when I first saw it, I thought it was unsourced content in the article itself, lacking introductory text to the section, until I edited the text and saw the category template usage. While the graphical layouts are great to have in the category articles themselves, their inclusion in the magenta article seems confusing and inappropriate. Magenta can still be included in the categories by using [[Category:Shades of red]] instead of {{shades of red}}, it just wouldn't display all the other colors then. The "shades of " articles could also be listed in a See Also section. Thoughts? -Agyle 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shades of templates are generally arbitrary and unhelpful. I think they should all be removed. In any case, Magenta definitely could not be called "red", so it should not have that template or be in that category. --jacobolus (t) 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general issue in color articles, and should be taken up in the color project. I'd support removing them, but if you just do it here someone will put it back "for consistency". Dicklyon 17:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked in the the "WikiProject Color" talk page here. -Agyle 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the shades of templates is absurd. The Wikipedia user needs them to find their way to the other colors of the same type. You need to think of the convenience of the Wikipedia user. Keraunos 07:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find them a distracting waste of space, and 90% of the articles that they link to are stub pages that will never be more than stubs, and should be merged or deleted. Wikipedia users don't need to find their way to those pages, and would be better served if all the information about a particular color was consolidated in one place instead of spread out over 20 stubs. I don't mean any disrespect, and it's obvious that they took lots of care and effort to create, but I just don't think the strip charts and shades of templates improve the articles they are included in. --jacobolus (t) 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Dicklyon is right. The place for this discussion is wikiproject color talk. --jacobolus (t) 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on writing a paragraph about Deutsche Telekom's (a.k.a. T-Mobile's) magenta, along with DT's trademark claim and related legal battles. Colour trademarks covers the primary topic, but summarizing info about T-mobile's case seems reasonable here. The case is frequently mentioned in recent articles on color trademarks, and T-mobile seems to be the only company that claims a broad (i.e. multi-industry) trademark on the color magenta. Does that seem reasonable for inclusion? Any thoughts on what to include or exclude? -Agyle 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shocking pink" is currently listed in the Variations section, with unsourced information describing its 1930s fashion origins. There are news articles that call it a magenta, and the basic unsourced information can be sourced. Is it worth doing this, and mentioning it in this article along with a wiki-link to Pink#Shocking_pink? Reliable sources confirm it's a named color, and describe it the "signature color" of the fashion designer who named and popularized it. Her use of colors apparently heralded a shift in the fashion industry from blacks and navies beginning in the '30s, but other colors were involved in that as well. -Agyle 20:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss this in the article, but it should be incorporated in the meat of the article (see Green for a good example of how a color articles should be restructured), instead of being in a separate section about a supposed color variation. --jacobolus (t) 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including a reduced copy of the text in the now-deleted variations section, as some of it may prove useful to someone conducting additional research for the article:

• Pale Magenta (Light Fuchsia Pink), title= Pale Magenta|hex= F984EF|r=249|g=132|b=229| c= 1|m=100|y= 2|k= 0| h=300|s= 27|v= 94
• Light Magenta (Fuchsia Pink), title= Light Magenta|hex= FF77FF|r=255|g=119|b=255| c= 2|m=100|y= 1|k= 0| h=300|s= 47|v= 84
• Ultra Pink, title= Ultra Pink| hex= FF6FFF| r=255|g=111|b=255| c= 3|m=100|y= 1|k= 0| h=300|s= 48|v= 83 This is a Crayola crayon color formulated in 1972. In 1990 the name was changed in error to shocking pink; however, properly speaking, the name shocking pink should be reserved for only the original shocking pink invented by Elsa Schiaparelli in 1936 (shown below).
• Inkjet magenta, title=Inkjet Magenta|hex=DD1470| r=221|g= 20|b=124| c= 0|m= 94|y= 14|k= 0| h=332|s= 96|v= 87
• Inkjet magenta is a variation of the process magenta shown above that is used in many inkjet printers.
• Shocking pink, title=Shocking Pink|hex=FC0FC0| r=252|g= 15|b=192| c= 0|m= 94|y= 14|k= 0| h=315|s= 94|v= 99 Shocking Pink, (also sometimes called neon pink) is bold and intense. Fashion designer Elsa Schiaparelli formulated this color in 1936, naming it shocking pink; it was the color of the box her perfume called Shocking Pink came in (the box was shaped like the torso of film star Mae West).
• Deutsche Telekom Magenta (T-Mobile Magenta), title= T-Mobile Magenta| hex= E4238E| r=228|g= 35|b=142| h=313|s= 82|v= 88|source=Internet}} Displayed at right is the color Deutsche Telekom magenta, otherwise known as T-Mobile Magenta. This is the color of their new magenta cellular phone, which debuted in February 2007. The source of this color is the following website: [2]
• Sky Magenta, title= Sky Magenta| hex= CF71AF| r=207|g=113|b=175| c= 5|m= 98|y= 7|k= 0| h=304|s= 87|v= 54 Displayed at right is the color sky magenta. This color was one of the colors in the set of Venus Paradise colored pencils, a popular brand of colored pencils in the 1950s. This color was sampled directly from the image of the actual colored pencil in a picture of a set of Venus colored pencils for sale on eBay. This color is also called medium lavender.
• Deep magenta, title= Deep Magenta| hex= CC00CC| r=204|g= 0|b=204| c= 3|m=100|y= 2|k= 0| h=300|s= 67|v= 37 |source=Hexcode Color Chart}}
• Dark magenta title= Dark Magenta| hex= 8B008B| r=139|g= 0|b=139| c= 3|m= 85|y= 2|k= 35| h=300|s= 33|v= 25|source=X11}}

-Agyle 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on removing any unsourced entries in this section. Speak up if you object, or want a delay.

As a general suggestion on this section, I think we should exclude cultural references to "magenta" unless the use of the term refers somehow to the color, rather than just the word. For example, the character Magenta in Sky High can turn into a magenta-colored guinnea pig, while the character Magenta in Rocky Horror Picture Show may have no connection to the color other than the name. The prog rock band Magenta is another example I'd exclude. Certainly room for exceptions, I'm just suggesting it as a general tip, and don't feel strongly about it. Feedback welcome. :-)

-Agyle 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the "in culture" sections as invitations to collect trivia, like trivia sections, which are officially discouraged. So I would agree that any such items need to be both relevant and sourced; if it's not about the color, it's not relevant to the topic of the article, and should be omitted. Dicklyon 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and tend to agree. I'll prune first, to take it one step at a time, then we can see what's left that's sourced, and how some of it might fit into a different, more prose-like structure. (Not implying all sourced material must be kept). -Agyle 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern I have is items’ relevance to the article. Factoids which are completely irrelevant to describing Magenta should be removed straight away, whether or not they have sources. For example, “Rhubarb is magenta after sugar is added and it is boiled into rhubarb sauce or baked in pies to achieve a flavor similar to sweet and sour sauce” is not at all relevant to the article about the color, instead belonging in the article about rhubarb. Things which are relevant but unsourced should have {{cn}} tags stuck after them for a while. --jacobolus (t) 02:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good way to do it. It is also up to the editor's discretion to simply remove unsourced items that seem flaky; if someone wants them back, they'll bring them back, hopefully with sources, or a cn tag can be placed when they come back. Dicklyon 02:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of dictionaries as sources for this article seem a bit dubious. For example, while 3 dictionaries might call magenta "purplish red", I don't think that's particularly accurate. The dictionaries are trying for a simple definition which can be easily understood by a lay reader, rather than the kind of technical description an encyclopedia should aim for. We should more accurately say that magenta is a hue somewhere between "purple" and "red", or better still give the approximate wavelength of a spectral color which would be called magenta (and find a source for that).

Additionally, citing 6 different dictionary entries (on the two words magenta and fuchsin) in different footnotes seems like a silly attempt to boost the number of sources, rather than any real improvement in statement sourcing. The entries have significant overlap: for instance the websters medical dictionary entry for fuchsin contains all the information of the other two entries, so citing them also is rather useless, and furthermore this article's interpretation of that entry is suspect: it does not say that fuscin was named after the fuchsia genus, and it's unclear to me that this is implied.

Also, the claim “The dye magenta may also be called fuchsin, fuchsine or roseine” seems inaccurate to me. As described by [3], these are original historical names, not current alternates. I'd like to see better sourcing for this claim, including some more recent use than the "Origin: 1860–65" which is the most recent date listed in those dictionary entries for roseine and fuchsin.

--jacobolus (t) 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the WP article Fuchsine is more complete than these dictionary definitions anyway. --jacobolus (t) 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would remove the sourcing of Britannica for the statement that magenta is extra-spectral, and replace it with a note to "see color vision" or similar. This claim is not contentious (it's a widely-known basic fact with no real need for a source), so any note should point the interested reader at a fuller background discussion. Since the Britannica article is unavailable to the public (requires a paid subscription), it doesn't very well serve that purpose. Ideally, a fuller description of extra-spectral colors could happen in this article itself. --jacobolus (t) 19:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a source for the color description because there's no well agreed-upon definition, and three dictionaries agreed on purplish-red. I was thinking perhaps it's more accurate to say it traditionally referred to a deep purplish-red associated with the dye, but now refers to a wider range of colors. However, but I'll change it back to pinkish pink. Rewording the dye sentence could indicate that some uses are archaic, I didn't catch that, but I'll just link to fuchsine as you suggest. -Agyle 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not call it "purplish pink" either. I don't think that's any more accurate than "purplish red". Instead what we should do is say "it's ≈ Lab hue angle such-and-such", or "it's any color that matches the hue of such-and-such range of wavelengths", or similar. Don't bother changing it from purplish-red to purplish-pink: "magenta" as usually defined is a hue about halfway between "purple" and "red". Just I don't think dictionaries are particularly great sources for that information. --jacobolus (t) 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that there's reasonable consensus about what color "magenta" is. It just doesn't happen to match what gets called "magenta" in computer graphics, which came about by just picking the nearest color name matching the hue that resulted from mixing the kinds of R and B lights in RGB displays. That the hue of this color is somewhat different than the hue previously understood to be "magenta" is unfortunate, but I don't think it changes any agreement about what "magenta" means in general. --jacobolus (t) 00:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it before I read this, but I'll leave further edits to someone else. Indeed, it refers to a pretty broad range. I think the opening paragraph should strive for accessibility for a topic this simple, something a ten-year-old might understand. A range of intervals in nanometers for two wavelengths (or terahertz, angles, etc.) isn't mean much to most people. :-) -Agyle 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some programs use magenta on their sprites to represent transparency. I'd like to know something 'bout it and maybe add that information to the article. It's written in the portuguese version (translated): "Also is used a lot as transparency regulator." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.3.159.228 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote about this in the article Magic Pink. Keraunos (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be true, but unless someone can produce a source, it shouldn't be so claimed in wikipedia. Certainly it doesn't need a whole article with a different name for the same color. Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to find out the process involved in the fabrication of this colour. Apart for briefly mentioning Process Magenta used in printing, this article focuses far to much, in my opinion on the electronic magenta and its Hex-Dec numbers. Does no-one care to mention Quinacridone PR122 (the modern chemically produced pigement) or the history of its producion. Which is widely available in modern paints such as Old Holland Magenta. I would be very interested in this information, and furthermore on anything relating to the traditional pigments that preceeded it. ^[1] Thanks Cageybee (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)CageybeeCageybee (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at User_talk:Dicklyon#Magenta_Color and User_talk:110.174.23.139#Magenta. I plan to stay out of it and let someone else try to talk reason with him. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that any wavelength of monochromatic light that stimulated the red cones and blue cones equally would also stimulate the green cones. I would not think that that would produce the same perceived color as a mix of red monochromatic light and blue monochromatic light which stimulated only the red and blue cones.Constant314 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; any wavelength that stimulates the long and short cone cells about equally is called green. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is fine but lets just clarify whats being said, please. The idea that is being promoted is of two distinct colors of light enter the eye and are combineed to produce a color (in this case Magenta).

However ...

White light is a wavefront with power(energy) equally distributed across the visible frequency spectrum. When the wavefront has power levels distributed at different frequencies so that some parts the spectrum have more or less power, then we call that a color. The wavefront that impacts the eye to produce the sensation of Magenta has high power levels in the lower and higher frequencies and low power levels in the center frequencies. It is just one wavefront but shaped in power intensity vs frequency. There is no such thing as different colors of light waves, only a wavefront that has a power vs frequency shape. As such there are not incoming different frequencies of light to produce a color, its just one wavefront. No separate blue or red light enters the eye to be combined and produce a color. The color is inherent in the energy distribution of the wavefront which stimulates the frequency sensitive biological receptors in proportion to the power levels within the wavefront.

It is for this reason that Magenta is (as are all colors) spectral. It is the energy vs frequency distribution of the incoming wavefront that produces the perceived color sensation. Any color you like can be produced by a single tunable light source through modulation.

One wavefront .... not seperate incoming light colors. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also combine red light from one source and blue from another and get the sensation on magenta. Thats how a color monitor creates magenta. Constant314 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my reply on my talk page:

I'm not sure what you mean by "wavefront" here, but I agree that in general the light coming in can be described as having a spectrum and that different spectral shapes appear as different colors. That's all good. But "spectral color" has a meaning: it means a color that can be separated out of the spectrum as a single narrow frequency or wavelength range. Spectral colors are the colors on the curved outer edge of the CIE xy chromaticity diagram, or other chromaticity diagram (uv, or whatever). These are the colors you get by putting white light through a prism. That's what spectral color means, and magenta is not among those. Right? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit more:

When we describe magenta as a combination of red and blue light, that's probably slightly sloppy wording. It's not that the different light wave frequencies inherent have red and blue colors, but that if we viewed those wavelengths alone they would appear as red and blue. But it's also not true that one color, magenta, enters the eye. What enters the eye is a spectrum of light, as you note. If the spectrum looks like the spectrum of a red color plus the spectrum of a blue color, it will ellicit the percept of magenta. I think we are all in agreement on that. Just need to come to share an understanding of the definition of "spectral color"; it's not just any color ellicited by a spectrum; on the contrary, it's only those colors that one gets via spectral analysis, or separation of the wavelengths, as by a prism or a diffraction grating. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously no reason why both Magenta and Variations of magenta should contain near-identical information about the three "main" versions. It should be removed from one of them, so it's clear what each article covers. The most logical solution, to me, appears to be that the information about those three versions should be removed from the Variations article, and the main Magenta article can say, "For information about additional variations, see Variations of magenta." Or, the information about those three versions could be removed from the main Magenta article, which could say, "For information about variations of Magenta, see Variations of magenta."

In any case, the link to Variations of magenta should be more prominent than it is now, and I'm about to cram it in somewhere, but I have no idea how to do it logically because "If you want to read pretty much the same information from this article, plus some other stuff, click here" doesn't have a very nice ring to it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively we could merge the articles? Carlaxs (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following from the article:

• To psychics who claim to be able to observe the aura with their third eye, someone who has a magenta aura is usually described as being artistic and creative. It is reported that typical occupations for someone with a magenta aura would be such professions as artist, art dealer, actor, author, costume designer, or set designer.^[1]

I did it for three reasons. Firstly, none of the other color articles that I checked had a similar section. Secondly, there's a WP:V issue: with a single book cited, there's no way to confirm how psychics "usually describe" magenta auras; since New Age books about aura reading aren't exactly peer-reviewed, and the author's take on magenta auras may or may not be any more than a single person's opinion.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I felt it was undue weight, by a fair margin. Colors are very fundamental, basic concepts, and I don't think New Age aura reading theories belong in a color article (which is probably why the other color articles don't have them.) --Ashenai (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material has been added again. I am removing it, as the opinion of one non-notable author writing about pseudoscience does not belong here.50.147.26.108 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not always sure what the difference is. Should the word "Pink" be included in the article, or is that a different color than Magenta? 66.27.48.50 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is magenta one hue, or is it a range of colors? 66.27.48.50 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink and magenta are different colors. Pink is a shade of red. Magenta is made by mixing red and blue. It's defined as either a purplish-red or reddish-purple, on in the Oxford English dictionary, a mauvish crimson. Definitely not pink.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magenta is darker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.35.96 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827010357/http://www.magenta.nl/english/ to http://www.magenta.nl/english/

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) 17:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph says fuchsine was renamed Magenta by François-Emmanuel Verguin. Body of article says "Chambers Nicolson and George Maule, working at the laboratory of the paint manufacturer George Simpson, located in Walworth, south of London, made another aniline dye with a similar red-purple color, which they began to manufacture in 1860 under the name "roseine"" And then the article implies this Rosine was renamed to Magenta. Ehgarrick (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The two dyes original dyes, fuchine and roseine, according to the French Wikipedia article, had identical formulae, but different names. It's not clear whether Verguin or the Britsh were the first to use the name magenta. I'll see if I can make the wording more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiefkinDR (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entries in List of colors: G–M contained links to this page.

The entries are :

• Deep magenta
• Light magenta
• Pastel magenta

I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• India new 2000 INR, MG series, 2016, obverse.jpg (discussion)
• India new 2000 INR, MG series, 2016, reverse.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]