Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique hues

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I withdraw this AfD. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unique hues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some pieces of para-scientific heresy diluted in an apparent WP:SYNTH and obvious original research (read Special:PermanentLink/487322572 #References), and with brilliantly ironical title. It is apparent that four (ironically) different sects draw crosses on the color wheel and, obviously, cannot converge to an agreement about values of so named "4 cardinal hues" even roughly, with mismatches about 40° (where adjacent "cardinal hues" should be separated by 90° in average). Despite this, the article speaks about "these four colors". The only article's source is http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf , but even worse, data for hues are claimed to be based on that obscure presentation only indirectly. For example, the article gives 20.14° for red, the PDF gives 24°, and Natural Color System offers 345°. Likewise, yellow is 90° in the article, but 50° in NCS (note that NCS's yellow is closer to reds of both unique hues and AppearanceLec.pdf than to their yellow). The fourth different(probably, the same as of NCS —Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) set of "unique hues" is presented in commons:File:Opponent colors.svg, related to the opponent process article, which is mentioned in the "unique hues" at the very beginning as the theoretical framework. [reply]

I do not believe that an article is possible. At best, it may be moved to a section in Hue, after cleansing from the OR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original revision of the article is now scrapped. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a bit problematical, because it’s a stub (just as many stubs are). However, the subject itself is clearly encyclopedic, and there are hundreds of articles in the scientific literature about it. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unique+hue –jacobolus (t) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article (even of the stub class) should state, what constitutes the phenomenon. It is a piece of psychology? Physiology? Is it culturally influenced? The number 4 is a consequence of a theory (as in opponent process with its two x − y and z signals, if I understood correctly)? An unfounded belief? An experimentally established fact? If the latter, then which experiments determined this number and what else numbers of "unique hues" were proposed? It would be astonishing if this topic will appear to be scientific, but the article presented it as a conglomerate of fringe beliefs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The concept is well-established: see The Science of Color, for example. The frequencies of light which correspond to this may be experimentally determined – see Unique hues - Perception and brain imaging, for example. That experiment indicates that the sensation is produced within the visual cortex but that the mechanism is not fully understood. In the circumstances, the nomination seems to be tendentious but the nominator has not yet troubled to take his objections to the article's talk page. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If I see that article's creator had some clue about their material, then I usually try to save the article. This it not the case. It's true that I neglected searches in Google Scholar, but in any case the proponents of the article have to prove that this theory is notable. Just rewrite the article and show the notability, and it will be kept. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is interesting to note that the article uses a photograph of a mandala which I took myself. This just seems to be a coincidence — it's a small world... Warden (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hmm, it looks like due diligence in investigating notability was not performed before nomination. Please see WP:BEFORE for the steps one should take before nominating an article. The first page of Google hits for "Unique Hues" shows multiple links to academic papers on the subject. Searching Google Scholar yields 1,300 hits and scanning the list shows plenty of peer-reviewed articles in reliable journals such as Visual Neuroscience and Journal of the Optical Society of America. Searching Google Books yields 2,950 hits; some of these are textbooks such as, The Science of Color and handbooks, such as The Blackwell Handbook of Sensation and Perception. The topic is highly notable. It has been studied in visual neuroscience and the psychology of perception. It has also been studied in anthropology. The fact that there are multiple approaches to the topic does not preclude writing an article on it; one just needs to include the main approaches with due weight. Any problems with the article can be fixed through editing and consensus building on the article's talk page; AfD is not for cleanup, see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details. This article should thus be kept. Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The list of http queries does prove existence of researches in this domain, but it does not prove that the theory of 4 cardinal hues is notable, at all. The article poses "4 cardinal hues" as an established fact, but without clarifying whether this "fact" is relevant to physiology, psychology or cultural-related perception (such as mapping actual colors to color terms). Please, clarify this matter and add at least one scientific source which explains existence of exactly four unique hues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, present alternate points of view to get a neutral article. I've seen this article here who classifies up to nineeleven basic colors, expanding on the previous research that showed four. That one source cites four hues is not a reason to delete the article, but to expand it with other available possibilities. Diego (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you're getting nine from in that source (which lists eleven basic colours). Anyway, a basic colour is not the same thing as a unique hue. For example, orange is listed as a basic colour but it's not a unique hue because it is commonly perceived as a yellowy-red or reddish-yellow so doesn't have the elemental quality of yellow or red. Warden (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I may assert that your "green" is nothing but our (standard) green (which is a pure color) with some blue (or cyan) admixture. And that your non-standard 90° yellow is just the true yellow spoiled with green and black. Without protracted series of experiments either your or my statements are merely a chaff. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion is about whether the article Unique hues should be kept; in this case, that decision will be based largely on whether Unique hues is a notable topic or not. I presented general evidence that Unique hues is a notable topic--I can look up and quote example articles if you like, in addition to the two books mentioned. But this discussion isn't a referendum on a particular theory of unique hues. Some theories favor 4 colors, others favor 3, but for the purposes of this AfD, it doesn't matter. It only matters that the topic is highly notable, the article problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE) and the article has potential (see WP:POTENTIAL). When the problems are surmountable and and the article has potential, the policy recommends keeping the article. If the current article content has little or no value, we can stubify it, but the article itself should not be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article, but without prejudice for recreation: The topic probably is notable, but this article is full of OR, some of which openly contradicts the "sources". Most or all of this needs to be scrapped pbp 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to decide the quality of the article, but the merits of the topic. Surmountable problems should be dealt with cleanup and improvement. If you scrap most of it, you get a stub, which is a valid reason to keep the article given that the topic is notable. Diego (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current draft only cites one reference. That is just for the detailed colour angles in the CIECAM02 model and that checks out. So that is neither contradictory nor original. If we check out some other statement which currently doesn't have a supporting citation, such as "Leonardo da Vinci defined these four as the basic colors from which other colors should be mixed", then it seems easy to find a source which verifies this such as Color Ordered:A Survey of Color Systems from Antiquity to the Present. Purple should please provide an example of a contradiction as currently their !vote contains no evidence to support that vehement assertion and so seems quite misleading. Warden (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, an example of a contradiction is mentioned in the nomination... pbp 19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is too much of a rant for me to clearly discern a contradiction. Please be specific and tell us what you think is original and contradictory in the article. If all you are doing is agreeing with the bilious views of the nomination, then a per nom seems a better way of putting it. Warden (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really read my rant? The yellow of Fairchild–Jacobolus has h = 90°. The yellow of NCS and Opponent_colors.svg has h = 50°. At last, the standard RGB and CMYK yellow has h = 60° (I do not known whether a noticeable difference in hue between #FFFF00 and Y exists, but it certainly is not greater than few degrees). And similar picture with "red". How do you explain that NCS and Fairchild–Jacobolus deviate from standard colors in opposite directions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need explain that, we report of both points of view, unless we can find a reliable source that explains the discrepancy. Read the neutral point of view policy to see how contradictory claims are handled - we don't delete them, we just expose both sides. Diego (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not decide whether the theory is "substantiated" or not. But we decide whether something which looks like a theory actually exists. If one source states that h_Y = 50°, another that h_Y = 90°, and none can be found to explains either experimental or theoretical grounds, then we can't pose that a distinct theory of 4 cardinal hues does exist. Of course, article can be transformed along your lines, but it requires extensive rewriting from the very lead. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Incnis. I think you misunderstand how these models work. There’s nothing inherently significant about particular hue numbers, and the same color does not have the same hue angle when you move from one model to another. RGB/CMYK are entirely irrelevant to this subject. The specification of unique hues in CIECAM02 is directly based on the research done in establishing the NCS system, but the overall definition of hue is quite different, so the spacing of these same hues differs between the models. –jacobolus (t) 07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image shown at right may be helpful here. It shows a plot of hue on the horizontal axis, value on the vertical axis, in the Munsell system. The color shown are at the edge of the sRGB gamut. Various points of interest are plotted in terms of their hue/value. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 07:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifications. Now we "move from one unique hue model to another", while spacing and number of cardinal hues change. There is one picture for NCS and another for Fairchild's model. But really Fairchild's presentation is a sufficient source, especially on "the spacing of these same hues differs between the models"? The picture… nice picture, but it is not an RS. I also made such pictures to illustrate my arguments. Which source states that "there’s nothing inherently significant about particular hue numbers"? If something about "how these models work" (in some uniform fashion) is reliably sourced, then the article definitely should be kept. Otherwise any designer or painter can select "his/her own favorite unique hues" and there is nothing notable in it beyond the Hue article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you explain what means "the same color does not have the same hue angle when you move from one model to another". Of course, I can use different parameterizations, but why invent non-standard ones? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, jacobolus tried to say the thing explained in CIECAM02 #Appearance correlates. Then his calculation of color samples is not only original, but completely incorrect, with confusion between CIECAM02's hue and the standard hue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTCLEANUP, this is not the right place for such a discussion. Please withdraw your nomination and familiarise yourself with the literature. You might start with papers such as Variability in Unique Hue Selection or Locating the Unique Hues, which seem to explain the difficulties quite well and further confirm the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It is the burden of proponents. I want to make Wikipedia better, which includes suppressing of various ignorant and obscurantist stuff posed to be a part of the science. I am not obliged to search sources on every marginally notable theory, myself. I will not read a single paper on this subject until proponents made their first edit, either to the problematic article or to the Hue article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incnis: You have deep misconceptions about how color science models work, and you seem to be uninterested in learning about the subject, for reasons I can’t really understand. I’m not going to clear things up in a few sentences of explanation, so my general advice is: go read an introductory color science textbook or two, and then come back, and we can have a much more informed discussion. The first half of Fairchild’s book Color Appearance Models does a pretty good job of giving an overview, but if you want other book recommendations, I’d be happy to provide some. Or if you’re interested in online resources, this site is pretty clear and comprehensive [1]. Cheers! –jacobolus (t) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]