Talk:RGB color spaces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The external link "sRGB vs Adobe RGB: The Truth" ( leads to a page which asks for registration. Is it the same content as it was at the time the link was added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemethe (talkcontribs) 19:30, 4 June 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not work here. Maybe is the same Rombust (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The external page RGB Working Space Information contains a more complete version of the table on this page with extra information about Volume, Lab Gamut Efficiency and Coding Efficiency. I think that these would be interesting pieces of data to add, but don't know how this should be done given that the table is currently from a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:05, 8 June 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any copyright or other reason that this data can't be appended to the table? --Entirety 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


scRGB should be added (an article about it, too). I think scRGB has even larger color gamut than the new Adobe space. I'm not a graphics professional, so somebody else could do that. --Ondrejsv 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed rename[edit]

Unlike articles like sRGB color space, this article is not about a color space, whose name is RGB. Rather, it is about a number of color spaces, each from the RGB color model.

I believe the title of this article may help to reinforce the mistaken idea that there is a single color space called RGB. I therefore propose renaming it in the plural, "RGB color spaces" (with redirects sorted out and minor rewording). Seeing the plural in lists of color spaces should emphasise the point.

Comments. Notinasnaid 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No comments? I'll go ahead then. I think this is one of those cases where violating the general rule in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns is worthwhile. Notinasnaid 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is absolutely correct, the current name is misleading. Was this changed? Was it changed back again and why? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably some time between 2007 and now people decided there's no reason here to violate the general rule in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this should be renamed, but not to spaces. RGB is not a color space. RGB is a color MODEL. This article should be called the RGB color model. sRGB is a colorspace, ProPhoto is a colorspace. RGB by itself, is only a generic color model and does not have enough information to correctly store or present an image.
Thus, to be correct, this article should be renamed "RGB color model"Myndex (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like it would be good to rename. Given that this discussion has been going on for 14 years, IMO we should give it about 2 weeks for discussion to make the best choice. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And... uh... there is already an RGB color model article... And... I tend to agree that the level of confusion here would be helped by some renaming... If there is an RGB color model article, then does THIS article need to be combined into a general color SPACE article? If it remains separate, should it be called "RGB type color space" or "RGB color space types" or just go back to the simple but much more clear "RGB color spaces" Because there is already so much misunderstanding on this issue, it does need to be clarified, Wiki style guide notwithstanding.Myndex (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FOLLOW UP: Okay so I read the Wikipedia style guide and the idea that Wikipedia should not use plurals in titles is misunderstood here. In a case like this, Wikipedia says that plurals SHOULD DEFINITELY be used. See: The odd changes from that guy that can't spell chromaticity are not needed, but the title absolutely needs to be pluralized. And to that blue guy, stop running around saying "there is no such thing as an RGB color space" RGB color spaces are the group of color spaces that use the RGB model in some way. Stop with the vandalism over what is a banal semantic argument of your personal opinion, please. Discuss these things here in talk before shredding and deleting an article.
All that said, I am going to change this to "RGB color spaces" to correctly indicate it is about the general class of color spaces that use the RGB additive model. Hey it only took 14 years...Myndex (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with everything that Myndex just said. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @North8000: I submitted a formal request, it's at the bottom of this page...

CIE (1931) values correct[edit]

I was wondering is the y value for the CIE (1931) of 0,0089 correct or does it need to be 0,089. Carnelain (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A table on p. 139 of Wyszecki & Stiles "Color Science" (2nd ed, 1982) says the x,y,z of B are [0.16658, 0.00886, 0.82456]. The table looks correct. But the label should perhaps be CIE 1931 (RGB) rather than just CIE (1931), and similarly the last label should be CIE 1931 (XYZ).Captain Puget (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed it to "CIE (1931) RGB". If there's a more conventional term for it, feel free to change it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too Technical?[edit]

I was searching for "68% NTSC Color Gamut," which I found in specs for a monitor, and Google brought me to this article. It sounds fascinating, but I have no idea what the scientific formulas and notations mean. Could someone who understands this subject add an introduction explaining it? Thanks. Blumrosen (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The table and everything else in the Specifications section is pretty meaningless without an explanation.-- (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this is a technological topic, and it's handled technological, not too technical. Apart from that blame Google, not bringing to one of those "higher percent-value is better" spec-explainer-Blogs or to an explanation of "Gamut". Whole the field "Color Science" suffers a severe lack of structure in the Wikipedia. Obviously, this is fostered by the misleading idea, to explain manicly some topics again and again, that don't really concern the article's subject, and to do this in a half-knowledged manner (rather not even half). Bgks (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The 3-dimensional RGB color space is made easier to visualize by an animation[1] where the space is rotated. It overcomes the difficulty that some readers have in perceiving depth in the present line drawings. I added the animation to the article and it was deleted[2] by an editor using Twinkle. (However Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool that should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content.) I shall revert the deletion unless a discussion here finds a consensus against including it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And so done. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always use Twinkle for reverts; it has separate rollback and vandalism buttons; did I do something wrong? Anyway, the image impressed me as very busy/noisy/unhelpful. Let's see if anyone else cares. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone please add eciRGB v2 to the table, and possibly create an article? A German one already exists. Thanks in advance. — Christoph Päper 16:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RGB color space specifications from Bruce Lindbloom
Name Gamma Reference
Red primary Green primary Blue primary Volume (ΔE3) Efficiency (%)
xR yR YR xG yG YG xB yB YB Lab gamut Coding
Lab Gamut D50 2,381,085 97.0 035.1
ColorMatch RGB 1.8 D50 0.6300 0.3400 0.274884 0.2950 0.6050 0.658132 0.1500 0.0750 0.066985 0,836,975 35.2 100.0
ProPhoto RGB 1.8 D50 0.7347 0.2653 0.288040 0.1596 0.8404 0.711874 0.0366 0.0001 0.000086 2,879,568 91.2 087.3
Apple RGB 1.8 D65 0.6250 0.3400 0.244634 0.2800 0.5950 0.672034 0.1550 0.0700 0.083332 0,798,403 33.5 100.0
NTSC RGB 2.2 C 0.6700 0.3300 0.298839 0.2100 0.7100 0.586811 0.1400 0.0800 0.114350 1,300,252 54.2 099.9
Don RGB 4 2.2 D50 0.6960 0.3000 0.278350 0.2150 0.7650 0.687970 0.1300 0.0350 0.033680 1,802,358 72.1 098.8
Ekta Space PS5 2.2 D50 0.6950 0.3050 0.260629 0.2600 0.7000 0.734946 0.1100 0.0050 0.004425 1,623,899 65.7 099.5
Wide Gamut RGB 2.2 D50 0.7350 0.2650 0.258187 0.1150 0.8260 0.724938 0.1570 0.0180 0.016875 2,164,221 77.6 091.9
Beta RGB 2.2 D50 0.6888 0.3112 0.303273 0.1986 0.7551 0.663786 0.1265 0.0352 0.032941 1,717,450 69.3 099.0
Best RGB 2.2 D50 0.7347 0.2653 0.228457 0.2150 0.7750 0.737352 0.1300 0.0350 0.034191 2,050,725 77.6 096.5
Adobe RGB (1998) 2.2 D65 0.6400 0.3300 0.297361 0.2100 0.7100 0.627355 0.1500 0.0600 0.075285 1,208,631 50.6 100.0
Bruce RGB 2.2 D65 0.6400 0.3300 0.240995 0.2800 0.6500 0.683554 0.1500 0.0600 0.075452 0,988,939 41.5 100.0
PAL/SECAM RGB 2.2 D65 0.6400 0.3300 0.222021 0.2900 0.6000 0.706645 0.1500 0.0600 0.071334 0,849,831 35.7 100.0
SMPTE-C RGB 2.2 D65 0.6300 0.3400 0.212395 0.3100 0.5950 0.701049 0.1550 0.0700 0.086556 0,758,857 31.9 100.0
CIE RGB 2.2 E 0.7350 0.2650 0.176204 0.2740 0.7170 0.812985 0.1670 0.0090 0.010811 1,725,261 64.3 096.1
sRGB ≈2.2 D65 0.6400 0.3300 0.212656 0.3000 0.6000 0.715158 0.1500 0.0600 0.072186 0,832,870 35.0 100.0
ECI RGB v2 L* D50 0.6700 0.3300 0.320250 0.2100 0.7100 0.602071 0.1400 0.0800 0.077679 1,331,362 55.3 099.7

Requested move 20 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus was clear that this doesn't violate WP:PLURAL and the arguments made in favor of clarity were quite persuasive. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RGB color spaceRGB color spaces – See also above: I read the Wikipedia style guide and the idea that Wikipedia should not use plurals in titles is misunderstood here. In a case like this, Wikipedia says that plurals SHOULD be used. REF: RGB color spaces refers to a GROUP of spaces that use the RGB color model, therefore "RGB color spaces" must be plural for disambiguation reasons. Singular RGB color space is incorrect as the singular generic form should be referred to as "RGB color model" while actual RGB color spaces each have specific attributes that can not be summed up by a singular noun. This is a source of great confusion and really needs to be fixed correctly, thank you Myndex (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Myndex: can you say where you are sensing confusion caused by the present singular title? Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. WP:PLURAL states that Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance, which seems to apply here. PaleAqua (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – the alternative here is not to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance, but rather to treat all of the variations of RGB color space in one article. The plural is not needed to do so. Such a move was done without discussion in 2007, and I moved it back in 2008. Another title was used for a while, too, but I think the current title does the job well. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question/comment Question for the experts. What is the real distinction between a color space and a color model? And are there multiple RGB color spaces ? North8000 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not exactly an "expert" these days, but pretty experienced in color-space computations and such. I'd say the RGB color model is more generic, maybe linear, about combining primaries to make colors, but without specifying a whitepoint or transfer function (gamma nonlinearity). A color space ties those down, such that the relations between numerical triples and colors is well specified. Yes, there are many ways to tie down such details, including also the chromaticities of the primaries. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @North8000: Yes there are many RGB color spaces. As far as distinction, the canonical reference is the CIE, and they are much more granular than an answer I'd typically give, you can review at and they use terms "appearance model", "reproduction model", "referred state", "color space", "colorimetric system". "encoding"..... with that said, the way I like to describe it is used in other math/science also:
    • A model is the irreducible, simple form of a thing. (i.e. toy model)
      • The simplest RGB model is literally three lights, red, green blue, which can be mixed at different luminances.
      • Something is an RGB model if at some point, the component colors are reduced to red green and blue.
    • A space is the specific iteration or construction of a thing. (i.e. 3D space)
      • A color space is usually a 3D mathematical construct that defines the shape of the gamut, and is more complete in defining what each value is relative to (i.e. primaries and white point).
    • A profile is a file that contains the data, LUT, etc that defines a space.
    • CIE System is the "whole package" of maths — I'll paste some of their definitions later...Myndex (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Dicklyon: I'm not just sensing confusion, I am seeing much confusion directly, all the time, especially amongst programmers, game developers, and 3D artists. While the user LiquidBlueGuy has been a bit out of control on this issue, I still stand by what I wrote above. RGB is not a color space, it is a color model, and there are many color spaces that use the RGB additive model. The Wiki definition that I linked clearly indicates that plural is appropriate for this term, stating the exceptions to using singular are:
    • Articles on groups or classes of specific things (definitely applies)
    • Things like Maxwell's equations, Chebyshev polynomials, etc. The topic is naturally the system of equations.
    • Similarly, one is much more likely to mention Arabic numerals than a particular Arabic numeral.
    • Some lists may use plural titles, e.g., Lists of books.
    • Cases where the title only exists in the plural.
    This article is about the group or list of RGB color spaces. It is not about a non-existing entity called an RGB color space. It is only about the group of those spaces, and it should be plural.Myndex (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And to add, you said "...variations of RGB color space in one article" and I have to object, these are NOT variations on "the RGB color space" these are variations on the RGB color model. True that sRGB is a variation on the Rec.709 color space. But Rec2100 is NOT a variation, it's a completely different color space, but based on the RGB model, and therefore in the larger set of RGB color spaces. Plural, not singular.
    The singular is "RGB color model" variations on the RGB color model are the plural RGB color spaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myndex (talkcontribs) 04:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I don't quite agree. An RGB color space is a entity, which the article is about (I never said the RGB color space); the article is not about the group, as Maxwell's equations is; specific instantiations of this entity are also listed, which is OK. As for the confusion, can you show sources that exhibit it, so we can understand how it manifests and whether this proposed change might help? Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Dicklyon: While you never said "THE RGB color space" the the is implied because "RGB color space" is not a mass noun. And also in large part because the letters RGB are often part of a color space's name, and are part of the name "RGB color model" Here are a bunch of other Wiki examples:
    The last one is key. The general case of liberties is titled Liberty, but the specific group of civil type is "civil liberties". The general case of color spaces is titled color space, but the specific group of RGB type is "RGB color spaces"
    As for the confusion, it's everywhere. Here're some:
    And at this point I've spent far too much time over an "s" Myndex (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Me, too. Let's see what others think. But consider titles such as Flower: does it mean the flower? Should it be Flowers since there are multiple flowers and it's about them all? I don't think so; starting an article with the indefinite article A is pretty conventional. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Totally agree and oppose the move. (Also, "Bill of rights" is already singular.) Primergrey (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Primergrey: "Bill of Rights" is singular only as it pertains to the total bill, as such you are missing the point. Regardless there are plenty of other examples. "RGB color spaces" is a group of color spaces many of which use "RGB" as part of their name, leading to further confusion. There is not a singular "RGB color space". MOREOVER, the individual RGB color spaces are each incompatible with each other, as each has unique attributes and are not interchangeable, and require gamut mapping or other transforms. Myndex (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adding: the obvious reason, and one I failed to state initially perhaps due to its obviousness, is that each RGB color space in the group of RGB color spaces is incompatible with each other and not interchangeable without some transform or gamut mapping. Even Rec709 and sRGB which share the same primary and whitepoint coordinates still use different TRCs, and different reference/display characteristics. Some RGB spaces use imaginary primaries that can not be created as real colors. Some RGB color spaces use a simple gamma, some use a piecewise parametric TRC. Some use a D illuminant white point, some have a CCT white point that isn't even on the Planckian locus. It needs to be clear that "RGB color space" is not a generic and interchangeable thing, it is a group of things each with specific characteristics and requiring transforms to convert from one to another, many of which are non-trivial.Myndex (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support for the move I think that either way is fine. The plural makes more immediately clear that there are multiple RGB color spaces, something that is not as obvious to readers as you experts as you would think. Wiki guidelines etc. could be interpreted either way on this. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that's not obvious from the title; there's no reason it should be. Compare Standard illuminant and any number of other titles on topics that are descriptive and also have plurals. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I have thought for 10+ years that the distinction made at Wikipedia between "color space" vs. "color model" seemed made up and only weakly reflective of any common usage in the wild. The terms "color space" and "color model" are in practice poorly/vaguely defined and commonly (typically?) used interchangeably. I personally think this article RGB color space should be merged into RGB color model, color space should be merged into color model, and all of the related articles should be substantially reorganized if not rewritten. But while we are here, pluralizing "color spaces" doesn’t make any improvement. –jacobolus (t) 10:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At least in the context of this article, the article lead's definition can be relied on, even if others define things differently. It says "An RGB color space is defined by chromaticity coordinates of the red, green, and blue additive primaries, the whitepoint which is usually a standard illuminant, and the transfer function which is also known as the tone response curve(TRC) or gamma." That's what distinguishes the topic of this article from that of the RGB color model article, which notes that "Before the electronic age, the RGB color model already had a solid theory behind it, based in human perception of colors." Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: All of the examples of plural article titles are poor analogies for this one.
    jacobolus (t) 10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Jacobolus: Well, if you look at my comments several sections above from some time ago, I was lobbying to merge this with RGB color model. Recent events led me to the idea that pluralizing it would be a helpful step. On reflection probably the more effective move. My opinion here is that the demonstrated confusion surrounding the generic term "RGB color space" warrants some form of change to encourage disuse. We are entering a period where an increasing number of defined RGB color spaces are entering common use, with color already a much misunderstood subject...
    On the subject of plurals, I'm with you on all but the last (being a former civil liberties columnist). Freedom of expression is a civil liberty, so there is a singular use in this context. And there is "civil liberty" as a mass noun for the uncountable concept, and "civil liberties" for the countable group of specific liberties such as privacy, expression, redress, etc.... cheers... Myndex (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not convinced that you've demonstrated much confusion related to this. You showed a couple of cases where people were confused, and were assuming sRGB and guessed that plain RGB meant the linearized version (typically not a bad guess, for people hacking web and camera images). And a paper where the details of the color space were irrelevant to the HSV conversion being discussed. As for civil liberties, I think that's an example of unnecessary plural, though the term is much more used in the plural, as a set, since 1934 (says here; not sure why). Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Dicklyon: well honestly, I did not expect this to expand. I guess I'm just a little bundle of controversy, LOL. As for confusion, I have not been keeping evidence, LOLOL, and at this point I'm a bit exhausted and have actual real things to attend to. I work in Hollywood, and I can tell you the confusion is real here, except among those that work it daily.
    On the subject of "civil liberties" as a plural popping up in 1932, I have an answer for you: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. While the ACLU was founded in 1920, in 1932 they were involved in the major landmark case of Powell vs Alabama, the one that now guarantees us all the right to an attorney (effective council). That pretty much launched ACLU into the public's awareness. The use then is obviously a factor as it's a name, and obviously weakens my argument.
    Therefore, I go back to my original argument from February 2021 above, take this page and merge it with either Color space or RGB color model... then we can all get back to working on things of material merit. Or cats. Or beer. Myndex (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Still off topic) Not only is the term "civil liberty" rare, but almost all of those uses (at least in recent times) are not using it in the sense of a particular "civil liberty", but rather either (a) using "civil liberty" as a general concept (this is a distinct sense), or using the phrase as an adjective. Singular uses in the sense described at the civil liberties article are extremely rare. –jacobolus (t) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Display[edit]

wbm1058 Like in a couple of the other articles I have contributed to (Talk:Tesla Model S#Page Display), here also the current table at RGB color space#RGB color space specifications is so long that the table will flow over the right edge of your screen unless you have configured your device/Wikipedia to display it in tiny characters. It is technically difficult to display it. I am again pinging you here for helpful suggestions. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wbm1058, Neel attempted to ping you above, but since he had it wrong when his signature was expanded his attempted fix did not work. So I'm relaying the ping. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Dick. Neel, I'm not sure you're going to like this suggestion, but for some of the more complex or detailed tables on Wikipedia, the best solution may simply be to find a device with a larger screen. There are limits to what you can do to make large tables fit. I'm not familiar with how the iPad handles this. Doesn't it put a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen or let you see what went off the right side by using your fingers on the touch screen to drag the content that ran off back onto the screen (in which case the left side probably scrolls out of view)? Personally I don't try to do Wikipedia on my phone, I don't think it's really fit for that use. On the other hand there are apps on my phone (like camera) that I don't do on my desktop. wbm1058 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it shows a gray background on the right. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a topic for WP:VPT. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggested that to him last week, and for some inexplicable reason he ran off to WP:VPR instead. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neel.arunabh, the screen shot you uploaded doesn't really show me anything, because it doesn't show the table that you say doesn't fit. Can you try to upload another screen shot that actually shows the problem with the table? wbm1058 (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The updated screenshot looks OK, too. It gets the whole table in. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the expected behavior. The wide table spills over into the normally-grey right margin area, but not so far as to run out of room and trigger the scroll-bar to appear, because the whole table fits (barely). – wbm1058 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what's the problem? The lack of a scroll bar and the tight fit makes it look like maybe something got cut off, when it didn't? Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can duplicate or simulate the behavior by reducing the size of the window (Chrome browser on Windows 7) until the scroll bar is forced to appear. There is only a grey area on the right margin when there is a scroll bar; the grey area is what you scroll into to see the right side of the table. I'm pretty sure that a screenshot of the bottom of the table window or screen would show us the scroll bar, which has to be there. The grey area only appears on the right side of the screen when you've scrolled into it, and you can make it go away by scrolling back to the left. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can also see that with Chrome on Mac. But what's wrong with it? What do you think it should do differently? Maybe just scroll the table instead of the whole page? Like Template:Wide image does for wide images maybe? Still sounds like a good topic for WP:VPT. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objection to Lambiam move (removal of s)[edit]

Hello Lambiam,

There are a number of discussion here on that topic I thought it resolved? RGB color spaces (plural) is proper per MOS, As such I object to this move and request a revert.

There have been years of discussion, before the last move, where the s was correctly added to the name. I see you have very many fine edits, and I'm sure you are involved in fields where there is substantial nuance—this is one of those very nuanced fields. While I understand that from the outside, it may seem like "no good reason for plural" at first glance, as you claimed, in the field there are clear reasons that this should remain plural, and this is in support of the MOS.

The first clear MOS exception is that this is an article "on groups or classes of specific things" such as Maxwell's equations. A second MOS reason is that this is largely al list of these related things.

And we have good reasons for wanting this specific article titled as "RGB color spaces". One of the key reasons being that there are many RGB color spaces, and unfortunately a number of them use "RGB" or "RGB color space" in their actual name, and thus are themselves referred as RGB color space (singular). This causes confusion regarding these spaces.

Examples: sRGB color space, Adobe RGB color space, ProPhoto RGB color space, and there are also different "types" of RGB color spaces, beyond the specifically named ones, such as linear RGB color space, gamma encoded RGB color space, etc. When the proper name for a thing incorporates the group name for the related things, and especially when there are also multiple types or variations, then it is proper to use the plural form for the total group of the things.

There is not just an "RGB color space" there are a myriad RGB color spaces each with their own characteristics, and generally not compatible with each other without transform. The title should reflect that.

Please revert, thank you for reading. Myndex talk   21:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only saw the discussion after I completed the (complicated) move process. As it is, I think the appeal to the MOS exception is not valid. One cannot give a definition in the form of, "A Maxwell equation is a partial differential equation that ...". If it was feasible to define the concept like that, the article should be named "Maxwell equation", but the only reasonable approach is to define this concept in the plural. The same holds for the other exceptions given in our MOS. Here, it is perfectly possible and reasonable to define, in the singular, "An RGB color space is ...". The argument that there are several such colour spaces, if valid, would apply equally to countless other article titles. For example, there are many holotypes, the holotype of Pelorosaurus humerocristatus, the holotype of Marocaster coronatus, and so on. There are also many kinds of beans: the lima bean, the mung bean, the kidney bean, ... There are also many types of triangles, and so on and so forth. Yet the articles on the general concepts of holotype, bean and triangle have definitions in singular form and are titled "Holotype", "Bean" and "Triangle", as they should be.  --Lambiam 06:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the discussion, I see one support, one weak support, and two opposes. Hardly a consensus.  --Lambiam 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO renaming of an article should definitely be preceded by a discussion. And IMO the "s" provides good information/clarity in an area that is often confused......the mis-impression being that there is only one RGB color space. IMO the singular term would tend to exasperate that problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For renaming this article perhaps yes, but in general not. There can be many reasons to rename an article, many of which are uncontroversial and do not need a discussion. I actually doubt that there are many people who know the meaning of the term "colour space" and yet think there is, somehow, a unique RGB colour space. How would such people imagine it is defined? In any case, people who have the misconception there is a specific colour space that goes by the name "RGB colour space", whether they are only a few or a great many, will hardly be aware of whether the page name of the concept of Wikipedia is a singular or a plural noun phrase. Only if they happen to look it up, under whichever version of the name, will the first words of the lead paragraph surely make them aware of their misconception.  --Lambiam 17:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lambiam, with all due respect, you renamed this article with a disregard for Wiki policy, not even bothering to read the talk section or open a talk topic prior to renaming. Further, your reciting and interpretation of the MOS is not what is actually stated in the MOS, which clearly supports the plural form as I and others have previously stated.
My objection stands, your renaming action was inappropriate, both per motivation, and per execution. Best regards.  Myndex talk   21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I explained above, the appeal to the MOS exceptions is based on a misinterpretation of what is stated in the MOS. The earlier discussion was incorrectly closed; there was no consensus for the move to a plural. The only inappropriate aspect in my renaming was my lack of awareness of the earlier discussion.  --Lambiam 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]