Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhittleMario (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 13 October 2022 (→Next steps: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Colour Discussions

For previous discussions on this topic, please see WT:WPWX/Colour Discussions

RfC: Full-scale reversion

CONSENSUS EXISTS
Has been open for 11.5 days and discussion has slowed significantly, and it has WP:SNOW support for a reversion to the old legacy scale colors. NoahTalk 17:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the color scale changes to track maps, templates, and info boxes that were approved in the previous RfCs be reverted? NoahTalk 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the new scale satisfies WP:ACCESS better than the old one, having half-done changes across Wikipedia for months as a result of disagreements post-RfC is not a good thing. It is proposed that the changes implemented as a result of the first and second RfCs be reverted in their entirety and that the legacy scale that was in place for more than one decade prior be reimplemented until such time that we are able to come to an agreement on a proper replacement. Supporting this measure would rule those two RfCs null and void. NoahTalk 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[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.

Next steps

Since it was clearly established here that the project wishes to keep the blue marble trackmap and current track maker, we should discuss our next steps. We still need to find a replacement, but proposing a single solution clearly isn't going to work. I would suggest that multiple people try to come up with a solution that will work. If needed, I would suggest we use black outlines on light dots over the sand as a solution for any color clash so we can use lighter colors. Here are the criteria we are looking to satisfy:

  1. Dot colors need enough contrast between each other
  2. Dot colors shouldn't clash with the map background
  3. Needs to be accessible to those with Protanopia (red-blindness), Deuteranopia (green-blindness), and Tritanopia (blue-blindness)
  4. Needs to be accessible to those suffering from Monochromacy/Achromatopsia (greyscale).

We need to find a permanent solution to this problem that we can all agree on. I believe the first step would be creating a larger array of solutions that we can whittle down through debate. The goal will be to have three or maybe four that we can present to the entire project to choose from. NoahTalk 14:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems WP:ACCESS has been the cause of quite a bit of consternation in this whole debate. It puts a lot of constraints on what color schemes are usable and intuitive. So I think it's worth mentioning that WP:ACCESS is a guideline, a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense. It is not a policy or strict rule. So, while we should make a reasonable effort to meet WP:ACCESS, we don't need to bend over backwards for it. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TornadoLGS, as a colorblind Wikipedian (protanomaly specifically) I find it impossible to distinguish between Cat 3 and Cat 4 on the old color scale, and Cat 2 is incredibly confusing for me as well, and I have a relatively mild case. WP:ACCESS exists for a reason, and it's not so that it can be dismissed as just a guideline. And also, I think it's worth mentioning that the spirit of WP:ACCESS is accessibility for everyone, meaning that whatever we come up with, it won't be something that just ignores people with normal color vision. TL;DR those constraints are necessary if we want everyone to be able to use Wikipedia. WhittleMario (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhittleMario: There's even a problem if you don't have any color blind issue. We have acknowledged that problems exist, however, the issue is finding a solution that people are willing to accept. People will oppose a scale that satisfies WP:ACCESS if they don't like specific colors or shades of colors that are used. We have been discussing for nearly a year now and we haven't come up with a viable solution that can be implemented. Hopefully, we will be able to get some potential candidate scales within the next few months. NoahTalk 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: That's really why there's been no work? That sounds like it falls squarely in WP:JDLI, and quoting from that essay, in Wikipedia discussions, that argument ["I just don't like it"], and its counterpart "I just like it", are feeble and should be given no weight whatsoever. If you have a solution functional under WP:ACCESS that people support and the vast majority of the arguments against it are WP:PRETTY or WP:JDLI, then that doesn't at all sound like a deadlock. Also, if it's been an entire year, I think it's probably long past time to submit something to WP:DRN. If I had to guess, this second attempt to find a color scheme will likely end up being exactly the same as the first. WhittleMario (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't simply go against a majority of users who disagree with the new scale. The majority of users here agreed that it was a bad move to change the color scale and that it should have been reverted. United States Man (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhittleMario and United States Man:
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression


Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression


Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2


Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5

This is what I could come up with on the fly as a possible suitable replacement. A lighter shade may need to be used on wiki for some colors for the templates, but it should solve the map problem for the issues presented. What do you think? NoahTalk 01:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting any changes to the color scale at this time. We just reverted the first ones. Maybe take a long break and think about it instead of tossing out new proposals every other day. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man:Others should come up with suitable replacements and then we will narrow down the field. Once we get down to around 3 solid options, we will hold a RfC to decide which one to implement. NoahTalk 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about you just drop it and leave the old colors. More users seemed satisfied with that than all the previous alternatives. United States Man (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because both colorblind and non-colorblind users can't tell apart the old colors. Like me, for example. Also, I'm not exactly sure where you got this idea that everybody thinks nothing needs to change with the color scheme. May I remind you that there was a discussion early on that had consensus that this needed to be changed. Otherwise we wouldn't be here right now. WhittleMario (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm not really sure who you are (because I haven't seen you before), but myself and many others have been able to easily distinguish between the colors for years. You say there was a "consensus", but that initial discussion was admittedly canvassed and almost resulted in a block for several users (including Hurricane Noah). Many longtime users, such as myself, were not even privy to much of the conversation that was taking place offline and reached borderline harassment. So no, there was no consensus. The only consensus was to unanimously revert the ill-timed half-done changes in the first place. So again, I believe Hurricane Noah should leave well enough alone for a while and refrain from continuing to act in haste. United States Man (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put up the first of hopefully many more proposals to come that we will look at, make adjustments to, and later discuss to see which ones will progress further. This isn't acting in haste, but rather simply putting something up to start the proposal and adjustment phase of this process. As I said before, we will hopefully get several more proposals that we will eventually whittle down to about 3 and then those will be presented to the project in a RfC to decide which one is implemented. No future storm article or seasonal list will pass FAC or FLC if we decide to do nothing. Should racism in the United States have been ignored because whites thought the behavior was acceptable at the time? Hell no. Ignoring accessibility issues when we are aware of them would be flat out discrimination towards those affected. NoahTalk 02:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And many others have not, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Just because you can see the colors perfectly fine doesn't mean everyone can. Do you think I'm lying about it for some reason? I have nothing to gain from that. All I want is to be able to tell apart the colors in the article. Now, I suggest you drop this before you burst a blood vessel trying to explain why your personal color preferences should dictate Wikipedia's accessibility policy. WhittleMario (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have an obligation to fix the problems that have been presented. This project would be castigated even further by the community if were to openly refuse to fix the problems and attempt to satisfy ACCESS. That would be grounds for demoting every FA and FL we have that use these maps. NoahTalk 02:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ACCESS is an important guideline, and we should always follow it. John (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, but it still has the same issues as the old scale in that categories 2-4 are very close. I will say that it is marginally better than the current scale. Do you have an example for a map usage? WhittleMario (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but someone has changed the colors back to the original. How do we plan to fix this? TheEasternEditer (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEasternEditer: See the discussion above. There was pretty much a unanimous consensus to revert to the old color scheme. Discussions after the new colors were implemented reached an impasse and we were unable to move forward with related changes, such as to track maps. Rather than leave everything half-finished, we went back to what had worked before. Any new discussion on changing the colors will likely start from scratch. But, given how frustrating the whole deal was before, I doubt most people are keen to dive right back into it. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TornadoLGS. I didn’t know anything about this before an hour ago. Thank you for telling me. :) TheEasternEditer (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Alaska Floods

I need help on this article I want it to be on the main page. PopularGames (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Juan Featured article review

I have nominated Hurricane Juan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather&oldid=1115764198"