This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Color charge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Random stuff that was removed from the page. Kept it here so that it could be incorporated later as actual text. -Seth Mahoney 21:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

electrical charge -> color charge (sometimes color number)
electromagnetic force -> color force
charged particules -> quarks & gluons
exchange of photon -> exchange of gluons (difference: gluons are also 'color' charged)

The redirect Color symmetry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5 § Color symmetry until a consensus is reached. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the introduction of this article only gives a very vague characterization of what color charge is and spends an entire paragraph in explaining what it's NOT, i. e. corresponding to actual colors. Could someone expand the first paragraph a bit and add a precise definitiion of color charge in one sentence? --Jazzman (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I have time for it I will fix the introduction. Please review it when that actually happens and let me know if it still needs changing. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Colour symmetry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21 § Colour symmetry until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some information about those people that were critical of calling the three charge types "colors" as if the particles literally emit those colors; I only found one such critique in the strong interaction page, by Richard Feynman, which I added to this article. And then maybe some information about defenders of the term, who may perhaps argue that the notion of "color" is meant to be not a physical property in the sense of visible light, but merely an abstract label given to the concept of three types by analogy. The defense may point out that particles do not have "flavors" either; there may be some debate about whether each of these two terms is a word abstract enough to justify using the term to refer merely to "types".

Maybe some people might argue that while using the term "color" as a helpful label is in itself fine, saying "quantum chromodynamics" unnecessarily emphasizes connection to actual perception of color and to visible light. An argument can then be made that if you want to be accurate to the topics you're discussing, instead of saying "quantum chromodynamics" or "quantum flavordynamics", you can simply call it "quantum strong dynamics" and "quantum weak dynamics". ~2026-17956-01 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]