Talk:Bisexual lighting

This is just lights

Coin a name like that to two very used colors is a bit stupid if not, totally stupid. I guess I will call orange and black, the black cock color and make a wikipedia article about it, lol. 27.114.99.91 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already articles about colors. What's the point of complain? Gostek581 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Terminator isnt bisexual

Terminator is a machine, in Terminator 1, he is presented with this choice of lights whenever he is on close yet cozy place, not because he is bisexual in fact, HE CANT be bisexual he is a machine! Why are you puting sexuality to anything smh 27.114.99.91 (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Terminator is not mentioned in the article at all. Maybe you made a mistake? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a real thing

The creation of this article in 2018 predates virtually all of its references, and that's because it was a concept just memed into existence in early 2018 by a handful of websites/magazines. Movies don't actually use this lighting to signify bisexuality, and nobody when they want to refer to pink and blue lighting calls it 'bisexual lighting'. They call it pink and blue lighting. 84.211.57.47 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Video essays

I noticed recently that a lot of video essayists that are queer or are allies are using bisexual lighting. I think this article should include information about that because of popularity of genre Gostek581 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Capitalizing on the popularity of vaporwave/cyberpunk aesthetics without context

Without a greater context this article seems to be created as a sensational response to the massive popularity of cyberpunk works like Blade Runner 2049 and the immense amount of internet and artistic culture that utilized these colors following the film and other artwork. It's difficult to overstate how broadly this exact color scheme was represented in myriads of games, art and film inspired in the same aesthetic style around this time.

While an artist may choose to express deeper information about a scene or character using colors. These situations are not all encompassing and are very context sensitive and subjective. This article does not treat this topic with the delicacy and context required from such a statement. Tokidoki1510 (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You…are aware that this phenomena was well-known and written about before Blade Runner 2049 came out, right? And yes, the same color scheme is often used in cyberpunk art; for obvious reasons color schemes often have multiple meanings in different contexts. This article is about one of those contexts which has received significant media and scholarly coverage. Yitz (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

nominate for deletion

I don't see how this meets notability standards Mistyhands (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. This is only a theory and have nothing to stay in wikipedia. 2.39.103.239 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a joke

The history section is the only one that makes good sense. I propose reclassifying this article as a meme/joke Frigyes06 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This may not have been "real" on introduction, but general interest has legitimized it.

A lot of people here are of the opinion that this article is a misunderstanding at best and a hoax at worst. I disagree. While this concept may have started as a joke or a case of overanalysis, its success as a meme has prompted significant, genuine use and discussion of it in the recent creative space. This is a case of the streisand effect in full force. We can't remove pages just because their subjects started as jokes, or because they were initially niche before garnering more attention. Methanolfortheblind (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

—Suárez Miranda, Viajes devarones prudentes, Libro IV, Cap. XLV, Lérida, 1658

Musiceasel (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, "I don't think this page is important or useful enough to keep". I disagree. While bisexual lighting may not have had an enormous cultural impact, there's ample evidence of it being a widely recognized concept at a certain point in time and inspiring creative decisions in certain works of art during that period.

Without this Wikipedia page, the concept will likely fade into obscurity and "The following Generations" will be totally oblivious to the subtext that the lighting scheme implies in those works. Also, the existence and widespread nature of this trend is an important cultural artifact in itself. Future historians will want to be able to track the progress of bisexuality growing into a widely acknowledged and accepted identity; a cultural trend that celebrates (or at least references) bisexuality, even if limited in scope, is an important landmark in that process. Methanolfortheblind (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The skeleton

Skeleton

Non-skeleton

I replaced the skeleton render with a photo of a person being lit with actual lights, and User:Vancouvercalico has reverted it arguing that in my opinion, the skeletons curves to a better job of showing how the lighting spreads.

Is "how the lighting spreads" a thing, or are we just secretly respecting the origin of a meme, here? The meme is out there now, it'll get along fine without Wikipedia reverently refusing to ever update the page that it originated from. Belbury (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

the skull's texture fluctuates between light and dark, and the lighting spreads along that, lightening and darkening as well. you can also see it get darker on the inside of the skeleton's ribs.

also, one of the defining features of bisexual lighting is the mixing of red and blue, something the person image lacks. Vancouvercalico (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Vancouvercalico. The skeleton is humerus, but more importantly it's a complex, smooth shape that resembles a human figure but prominently highlights both colors and the blending thereof. You can only really see both colors on the person's face, and blending is minimal because of the sharper angles. The band of purple that comes from the combination of magenta and indigo is what causes the resemblance to the bisexual flag, and the skeleton demonstrates that well. Methanolfortheblind (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

None of this blending and fluctuation and lightening and darkening is mentioned in the article, though. There's nothing about carefully combining different lights to make a "band of purple" that resembles the flag.

According to the text and a look through the sources we're quoting here, bisexual lighting is just when you use pink, purple and blue lights to illuminate something: often a person. Belbury (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the man can quite reasonably exist on the page, but it's not the best example as most of him is in black shadow, and there's very little of him that's even blue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Would cropping the photo to head-and-shoulders address that?--Belbury (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsure, to be honest. I'm not the biggest fan of screwing too much with another user's work. It's a well-composed photo in the original, and the crop might be costing a lot of the appeal of the photo for an attempt at a better exemplar.

By the way, you may find {{Easy CSS image crop}} easier to use. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of the skeleton, yes, it's goofy, but this is a more marginal subject notability-wise. If the skeleton is relatively notable compared to the phenomenon, it's possible it should have its own section in the article, and that would probably justify rearranging photographs. I'd imagine that would be reasonably acceptable to everyone, though it would need proper sources.

This kind of "internet-thing" is kind of weird to write about compared to more traditional articles. And sometimes Wikipedia is a key part of that phenomenon, and we shouldn't exclude it simply for being self-referential. We just need to keep neutral, as if we're another site writing about the phenomenon on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked for sources when wondering whether to replace or remove the skeleton image, but couldn't find any.

In the absence of sources, I'd think that we should at minimum be writing the caption as if those sources existed ("this viral image originated from an earlier version of this Wikipedia article"), marking it as citation needed, and hoping that a source eventually appears. I don't think we should keep a straight face and continue to present the skeleton as our best possible "showcase" example when it sounds like it probably isn't. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it is an example of bisexual lighting. That's not really in dispute. Is it an unusual choice? Sure, but it's not bad as an example, and the CGI means that it was possible to adjust things more than it could be in a photograph. The examples of bisexual lighting include 2D animation, so it's not like a photograph is the only option.

It's weird, but only in ways that make people actually interested in this article, not in any unencyclopedic way. You seem to be suggesting we treat it as if it's not a good example of bisexual lighting, and I'm not convinced that's true. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. I do like the photographic inclusion, I just feel like we shouldn't lose the old skeleton without something that's equally compelling. I do think a photo could do that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's weird, but only in ways that make people actually interested in this article, not in any unencyclopedic way. - to people who have never seen the meme (and if we're not going to tell them in the caption that it's a meme) it will just be a weird image. It won't make them more interested in or compelled by the article. It may give them the wrong first impression that bisexual lighting is mainly a videogame thing.

MOS:LEADIMAGE lists some factors to consider when weighing up which image to put at the very top of an article. If we're having trouble making a call on the "what our readers will expect to see" angle because fans of the meme will know its a Wikipedia screenshot and very much hope to see the skeleton still there, perhaps this needs an RFC. Belbury (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that it does a good job at showing the concept, though. If we had a photo that did a really good job, then there'd be a point arguing, but we don't really have one that balances the pink and blue lights very well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that - meme context aside - you think the skeleton image is better for the lead than the lighting photo, though? That if we'd been having this conversation back in February 2021, you'd have said that hands-down the CGI skeleton was obviously the more appropriate lead image to use?

Or is it only a better lead image when we factor in the weird meme interest value that it adds to the article? Belbury (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I do genuinely think the skeleton is a better image for showcasing bisexual lighting and what it actually is

I wasn't aware of the meme before seeing the article, though encountered it shortly after, and yeah, it's a slightly humorous thing to have as an opening image, but I am of the opinion that it displays the concept better than the photo of the person Nolshru (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Aye. There really is nothing better being suggested, so its hard to see why we're having this discussion. If a different image is up for consideration, and we agree it's better, then we can talk about skeleton-as-meme and how to present that and so on, but when there isn't something better.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lead image

The following discussion 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.

---

CGI skeleton

Photo of person

Should the lead image be a CGI skeleton or a photograph of a person? Which of these two images should be used for the lead? Belbury (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Show the actual images you're suggesting. This discussion is pointless to have in abstract. So far, the only example picture of a person mentioned at all does a terrible job at showing bisexual lighting in an easily understandable way: way, way too much black, almost no pink, and you're the only person saying otherwise. It's kind of a malformed RfC because of that. No-one disagrees that a person couldn't be the lead image. But there's not a sufficiently good one available. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reframe the RfC as a straight choice between two photos. I'm assuming good faith of the commenters above and those who reverted the image when I first changed it, but when the article thumbnail is itself a meme that tells people to look at this Wikipedia article, I think this needs broader input.

Subjectively I'd say these were an imperfect (but funny) example of CGI lighting and an imperfect (but not funny) example of real lighting. From the article text and the examples from film and television in the sources, the colours don't need to be 50/50 balanced or blend into each other in any special way. For an article about pink-blue lighting in photography and live-action film which contains only one passing mention of videogame usage, the real photograph seems the more "natural and appropriate" WP:LEADIMAGE. --Belbury (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

as I said in my own comment before, I do genuinely think the skeleton is the better example of bisexual lighting than the image of the person, I won't lie and say that I'm not partially influenced by the silliness of it, but it is absolutely the image that shows the concept of bisexual lighting better, particularly showing how the colours combining affects different parts of a rough and textured surface, rather than not really showing the colours interacting at all

a better image could absolutely exist, like, if someone were to do so, that'd be fine, but I do think the skeleton is sufficient, and the best image that currently exists to show the concept of the article Nolshru (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I agree that the proposed image is not an improvement, instead it's way too blue. But I support changing it if a better image appears. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Many pop culture examples feature one of the colours more prominently than the other, the definition of the concept is just that both colours are used. One major example in press coverage is a still from the movie Atomic Blonde which is mostly blue. Belbury (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The usage of an instance of actual instead of rendered lighting seems to make far more sense to me. Preference to the person. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Person. As someone who had never heard of this topic before, my reaction to reading the lead sentence ("Bisexual lighting is the simultaneous use of pink, purple, and blue lighting to represent bisexual characters.") and seeing a picture of a skeleton was confusion. Is the skeleton bisexual?--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a photo with purple? It's a nice one, but it doesn't have the purple like in the other two photographs. It's quite the nitpick. SWinxy (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

This seems to be a meme, not notable

Hi there,

This doesnt seem notable to me. This should be subject to an AFD, as it seems non notable and/or a meme. Plebiano (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many articles cited from reliable sources that focus on bisexual lighting specifically. Just because something is a "meme" does not mean it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. See Category:Internet memes. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Replacing the CGI image with an AI image

In absence of a consensus to move the article's photograph of a person into the lead, are there any objections to replacing the 2021 Unity-generated CGI skeleton with this AI-generated CGI image? (The skull on the T-shirt is an intentional nod to the article's heritage.) Belbury (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah

the skeleton is showing something a human made to show off the lighting so it’s more reliable than that happened when some dude typed “teen in purple and blue lighting” and then an ai just mushed up things 45.25.145.130 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to judge this on which process we'd expect to give a more "reliable" output, we can see the images and choose one based on how they look. I don't see any "mush" in it, it looks accurate to me and gives a better impression of what this lighting looks like when photographers use it. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

IP may not have explained it well re something a human made to show off the lighting so it’s more reliable, but I read their comment to mean "the subject of the article is a deliberate creative choice for lighting by someone who understands the implications the article describes, and so logically any visual depiction would have to be one created by a human who is capable of understanding the implications and deliberately chose to show them. Any other form of image representation would just be something that may match the visual look but not the intention, ironically not being an actual example of the article subject." And I completely agree. Big objection. Kingsif (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I also find it crude that you added that image to the Wikidata for the subject without any discussion let alone agreement, while also removing the longstanding example. Just no. Kingsif (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

hecko's hat

I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, why not? Excuse the amateur lighting... ~.hecko (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• The better question is why not make the Hollywood Bowl photo the main image, or another Commons option like this which also has a Pride flag visible. Kingsif (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)