Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 18 April 2022

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Weather and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WEATHER WT:WPWX

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Weather This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather

Space weather task force

Bumping thread for 180 days days. Noah 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) A few of us decided off wiki to make a space weather task force to cover the branch of meteorology dedicated to space weather. We need to outline every article that should be included here. Noah 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: What thoughts would you have on this? Noah 02:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I love the idea. Misplaced Pages should be thorough and reflect the body of information that is out there. I believe we might need an article for Climate of the Moon, if we want to be thorough. I believe our mission should be as thorough as possible, with as much organization as possible, identifying a logical structure to all of the information presented. Some of these redlinks and stubs might one day be the best source of information for researchers who haven't even been born yet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0, Serendipodous, and Owllord97: Hello, I was wondering if you would be interested in having cooperation between our two projects. I would be interested to hear your input on what articles should be included in this taskforce. I have formed a preliminary list below of ones I have seen and feel should be included. Noah 00:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

solar wind, obviously. solar corona and nanoflare are the mechanisms generating the solar wind. thermoshere and exosphere if we're restricting ourselves to Earth, atmosphere of Mars and climate of Mars if we're not. Serendious 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose creation. Space weather is distinct from Earthly weather. I guess we could include the climate articles for each planet in WPWeather, but solar storms and the like are quite unrelated to weather. Destroyer (Alternate account) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• • @Destroyeraa: I think it's worth including some of the space stuff in the article, as it has a big impact on our weather and the way we forecast it. For example, Katrina was partially attributed to variations in fluxes of galacticcosmic rays. However, my biggest question with the whole project is how far we should go with things where the weather played an important role and potentially changed history like World War 2 (D-Day or the German invasion of Russia) or the Miami Building Collapse.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We need to cover all forms of weather as that is what this project is about. We can't pick and choose which ones we do and which we don't. Space storms have had a profound impact on people in the past and should be covered. Noah 20:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't really up for a vote. WikiProject Weather was set up to cover all areas of weather in general, and it was already decided that we would have a Space Weather Task Force to address the topic of space weather itself. Also, no, space weather is definitely still weather. The only difference is that it happens in space, rather than on Earth. Why should we exclude space weather from this project? There isn't any good reason for doing so. This is WikiProject Weather, NOT WikiProject Earth Weather. And space weather also constitutes a separate branch of meteorology, so it definitely warrants inclusion in this project. Given the significance and scope of space weather, the only other alternative would be to set up a separate WikiProject for space weather, but that would just result in a mostly-inactive project (like WPNTS) with numerous overlaps with both WikiProject Weather and WikiProject Astronomy, so this option is better. For the record, I support the creation of the Space Weather Task Force and its proposed organizational structure, as is. This branch of meteorology definitely needs to be covered in a general weather project, and I think that the organizational structure proposed below is an excellent one. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Organization

• Space weather (top)

• Aurora
• Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy
• Boulder Geomagnetic Observatory
• Disturbance storm time index
• European Space Weather portal
• Geomagnetic storm

• List of solar storms
• 774–775 carbon-14 spike
• 993–994 carbon-14 spike
• Aurora of November 17, 1882
• Bastille Day event
• Carrington Event
• Halloween solar storms, 2003
• January 1938 geomagnetic storm
• March 1989 geomagnetic storm
• May 1921 geomagnetic storm
• Solar storm
• Solar storm of 2012
• Solar storm of August 1972

• Geomagnetically induced current
• Geospace monitoring satellites

• Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere
• Aist 1
• Alouette 1
• Astrid (satellite)
• CHAMP (satellite)
• Cluster II (spacecraft)
• CRRES
• CSES Mission
• Deep Space Climate Observatory
• Double Star (satellite)
• Dynamics Explorer
• Elektron (satellite program)
• Explorer 1
• Explorer 9
• Explorer 10
• Far-infrared Outgoing Radiation Understanding and Monitoring
• Geotail
• Global-scale Observations of the Limb and Disk
• Interstellar Boundary Explorer
• Ionospheric Connection Explorer
• Kosmos 1
• MS (satellite)
• Munin (satellite)
• Odin (satellite)
• SMILE (spacecraft)
• Sputnik 1
• Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
• Vanguard 1
• Viking (satellite)
• Wind (spacecraft)

• HamSCI
• Heliophysics
• Heliospheric imager
• Kuafu project
• NASA
• Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere
• Science-Enabling Technologies for Heliophysics
• Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
• Solar Cruiser
• Solar Dynamics Observatory
• Solar storm
• Space climate
• Space hurricane
• Space tornado
• Space Weather Prediction Center
• STEREO
• Sudden ionospheric disturbance
• THEMIS
• Van Allen Probes
• ZACube-1

• Atmosphere

• Sun#Atmosphere
• Atmosphere of Mercury
• Atmosphere of Venus
• Atmosphere of the Moon
• Atmosphere of Mars

• Methane on Mars
• Dust devil tracks
• Mars general circulation model

• Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#Atmosphere
• Atmosphere of Jupiter

• Great Red Spot

• Io (moon)#Atmosphere
• Callisto (moon)#Atmosphere and ionosphere
• Europa (moon)#Atmosphere
• Ganymede (moon)#Atmosphere and ionosphere
• Saturn#Atmosphere - Split?

• Saturn's hexagon
• Dragon Storm (astronomy)
• Great White Spot

• Atmosphere of Titan
• Enceladus (moon)#South polar plumes
• Atmosphere of Uranus
• Titania (moon)#Atmosphere
• Neptune#Atmosphere - Split?

• Great Dark Spot
• Small Dark Spot

• Atmosphere of Triton
• Atmosphere of Pluto
• Extraterrestrial atmosphere

• HD 209458 b

• Stellar atmosphere

• Photosphere

• Supergranulation
• Granule (solar physics)
• Faculae
• Sunspot

• Chromosphere

• Plage (astronomy)
• Spicule (solar physics)
• Moreton wave

• Solar corona

• Solar transition region
• Coronal hole
• Coronal loop
• Coronal mass ejection
• Solar prominence
• Helmet streamer
• Supra-arcade downflows

• Heliosphere

• Heliospheric current sheet

• Space climate (high)

• Climate of Pluto
• Climate of Titan
• Climate of Uranus
• Climate of Neptune
• Climate of Saturn
• Climate of Jupiter
• Climate of Mars

• Mars Climate Orbiter
• Mars general circulation model
• Temperature and Winds for InSight
• Terraforming of Mars

• Climate of Venus
• Climate of Mercury
• Climate of the Moon

RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible

Which color scheme is more accessible?

The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below SSHWS colors, which increase the contrast between the hurricane colors. To summarize these changes, the Tropical Depression color was lightened ever so slightly, the Tropical Storm and Category 1 colors were left untouched, Category 2 was darkened, the current Category 4 and 5 colors were moved down to 3 and 4, respectively, and a new purple color was introduced to fill the empty Category 5 spot. These changes would apply to track maps and infoboxes for weather articles. I would also propose adjusting the colors used for the infoboxes for other scales to match the changes being proposed here for SSHWS so we maintain a mostly-uniform color scale for the different tropical cyclone and weather scales. Below are tables of the old colors and proposed changes. I have also included a side-by-side comparison between the two color schemes for Hurricane Ivan's track. Noah 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Some portions of the above are no longer accurate due to changes made to improve the overall scale. Noah 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed color changes

Color comparison table

Track map comparison

Discussion

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.

• Support As proposer. Noah 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and as the creator of the above comparison maps. Chlod (say hi!) 03:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support per both above, as well as the fact that I have had similar issues in the past distinguishing the different colors, and that each new intensity example is easier to distinguish for me with the better contrast in the colors. The only possible slight hiccup would be that it might take some time for other users, readers and editors to get used to the change if it were to be put in effect, considering the original coloring scheme has been in effect for some time now. Otherwise, this seems like a good idea. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not much of a hiccup since we already include the storm color key in {{storm path}}, so it shouldn't be that hard for newer users to check the new legend. Chlod (say hi!) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, okay, that makes sense. @Chlod: Thank you for explaining and clarifying that. I have struck corresponding portion of my comment. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – Per the proposer. Also, I've noted for years that we've had issues with some of the color contrast, in terms of just how similar they are. This is most obvious in the current SSHWS color system, which uses 5 different shades of red/yellow colors. I've found myself having difficulty distinguishing between the Cat 1 - Cat 4 colors at times, especially when similar shades are right next to each other, such as Cat 1 vs. Cat 2, and Cat 2 vs. Cat 3 (the worst two cases, IMO). I consider myself to have extremely good color sense, BTW. If I'm having trouble distinguishing between these colors, then so are many other readers out there. Also, the orange/yellow shades are too similar to be distinguished by colorblind people. So we have a serious problem here, in terms of accessibility. The current coloring system used for the Enhanced Fujita scale and the Fujita scale also use the same colors from the SSHWS system in Template:Storm colour, so they have the same issue; by making the changes to the SSHWS system alone, we'll also be fixing this issue in the Fujita and the Enhanced Fujita scale colors. The new colors proposed by Hurricane Noah are mostly similar to the current colors, but have more of a contrast and are much easier to distinguish. Thus, I support this proposal. If this is done, all of the track map images will need to be updated accordingly, and while this would be the most difficult part of implementing the color changes, it is definitely doable. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• However, in the proposal, I would like to replace the pink C3 "proposed color" for the new NIO/SWIO/Aus/SPAC system with the current dark yellow C4 color in use, in order to provide more of a contrast between C3 and C4 for that part of the new coloring system. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Done. Noah 12:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Meow, Supportstorm, FleurDeOdile, AveryTheComrade, and Cyclonebiskit:, since they are currently the main creators of new track maps for the project. The biggest hurdle in this plan is the fact that all of the old track map images will have to be updated with the new coloring scheme, but I think that this can be done. Some of the older track maps need to be redone, anyway (especially for the older SHEM and NIO seasons). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – We were discussing this change earlier and thought the pink looked good within the scale. However, looking at it in a map I do not feel like it meshes well. The changes don't look much better than the current scale. Our maps are used by many people outside of wikipedia, an I have never seen anyone directly comment on the map colors being hard to see. Not to say some had, but if this color scheme can last +15 years without any major complaints I don't feel like a change is needed. That being said if someone can point me to a previous assessment of an ACCESS issue with the color scale I'd appreciate it. I recall there being one mentioned the last time this was brought up and want to know what was discussed there. Supportstorm (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reading through previous comments left about accessibility issues with the color scheme, most seem to boil down to not using colored links with the scale color. Nova and AustinMan found the colors to be in compliance to WP:CONTRAST standards during the Netoholic debacle. Not sure if standards have changed or if others want to validate their previous assessments. I'm leaning more towards oppose with these changes. Supportstorm (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've checked the current color scheme against several color checkers and found no violations to the WCAG standard against the ocean color. For green land we have several fails with both schemes, but the land varies in color so it's hard to gauge. I have not come across of another objective way of determining if the maps comply with colorblindness with either current or proposed color schemes. It's becoming more apparent as this conversation draws out, to me, that this is mostly an argument of subjective aesthetics since both schemes are likely within colorblind standards. Supportstorm (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – I would like to know the impact on colour-blind people first. 🐱💬 05:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Without a serious consideration of what these changes affect for colorblind people (no mention of them in this proposal beyond "it's probably hard for them"), the amount of work required to generate all new maps would be unjustified and I would oppose. Examples would be appreciated. – atomic𓅊7732 05:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  About the maps: they can be systematically regenerated using a bot since most map uploaders place generation data in the Commons summary (even though it's technically an improper use of the |code= parameter). It hasn't been tried (since something like this hasn't been proposed before), but it's definitely achievable. Chlod (say hi!) 17:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's certainly achievable, however, I think a great deal of thought and consideration needs to be put into the proposal to go through with all that effort lest we change it only for this problem to come up over and over again in the future (as it has before). I didn't think that the requisite consideration was put into this proposal originally, but I am glad that revisions are being made as concerns arise. – atomic𓅊7732 23:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, it would take years fr readers to get used to this. The most common color-blindness is red-green, which is not a concern either way. However, purple-red is also a common type of color-blindness, and it would be virtually impossible for people affected by it to distinguish whether a storm was Category 4 or 5. 🐔 Chicdat   11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Chicdat: I've updated the comparison table above (along with the filtered map images) to disprove this. Perhaps you should take a look. Chlod (say hi!) 17:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @Supportstorm, Meow, Atomic7732, and Chicdat: Checked for color blindness and posted those results above. Overall, I think the new coloring scheme does a better job of providing contrast between colors, especially ones directly next to each other on the scale. Noah 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #A751EF at 16:42, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a good idea, however, the C5 color seems a bit off, and it's hard to distinguish between it and other colors in the tritanopia examples. I also find it hard to distinguish between TS and C1 in the deuteranopia and protanopia examples; the C5 color is also much too similar to the TD color in the same examples. The CS and SCS colors also seem similar, though that probably won't matter since the SCS colors are barely used, though the jump between CS/SCS and VSCS is quite wide. When fixed, I'd be happy to support. Akbermamps 14:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Changing to Support since my concerns have been addressed. Akbermamps 02:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Akbermamps: I can't update the tracks to have the same colors since I lack the technical ability to make that happen, but I updated the color schemes for the tables. I believe the new values are better than the old ones and fix the issues. The colors for the others scales outside the SSHWS would solely be for the infobox coloring purposes rather than maps. Noah 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Everything is now updated. Noah 17:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Hurricane Noah: I think something close to   #D3326D may be better as a C5 color as the color used is still too similar to the C3 color in the tritanopia example. Looking at the colorblindness simulations, it looks much more pleasant while still remaining distinct. Akbermamps 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Simply put, I do not see much of any reason why we need to change the colors out of nowhere. There is plenty of contrast in the current color scheme and, if I'm gonna be completely honest here, the new colors look worse than the old ones - so why should I support a downgrade? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  "Out of nowhere" is incorrect: this was proposed due to ACCESS problems. Reading the initial proposal might help. Chlod (say hi!) 00:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the SSHWS colours look mostly fine, but my main concern is the NIO/SWIO/AUS/SPAC colours. I really don't like how it jumps from light blue to dark orange, and it looks extremely ugly to my eyes. I think it might be better if the VSCS/TC/C3 colour was equivalent to the SSHWS C1 colour, and the ESCS/ITC/C4 colour was equivalent to the SSHWS C3 colour, like how it is currently. SolarisPenguin (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @SolarisPenguin and Lucarius: Fair point and I will adjust that accordingly. Noah 22:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose in spite of the fact I recognize my opinion does not matter — No. Just no. Our current color system is fine as-is and the blue to dark orange jump in non-SSHWS scales disturbs me greatly. What was the point of this? This solves nothing major - none of the changes look better than the originals in the colorblindness simulations, and quite frankly it'll look even more ugly there. This is an unneeded choice. I will remain convinced of this until a broad public survey proves me otherwise. (And it will, because weather-wise everyone loves when things get changed.) ~ AC5230 talk 21:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I am now in support however I would prefer my idea below. ~ AC5230 talk 21:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — Interesting proposal, one that’s been well thought out as well. The logistics of it are sound; on the condition that it does make things better on those who are colorblind, and it does increase the contrast of the colors. However I do have one or two concerns. First off, this proposal causes a very non-linear progression of color as the categories advance. This is most apparent in the transition between categories 2-5; where one goes from a gold-yellow to orange to red (a very natural progression) and then immediately goes to a deep purple. A pink color may flow better and is what I would likely suggest but, as previously mentioned, it wouldn’t mesh well with track maps. Secondly, as mentioned by Solaris and others, the proposed changes also create inconsistencies in color progression for scales in foreign basins. While this is a bit less significant as it’s only used for infoboxes, it’s still something of note. With all considered, were I to vote i’d lean towards opposing on this one. Lucarius (talk) 21:31, November 17 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, Supportstorm is mistaken. It was a different purple color I had shown him. I can investigate a pink color and report back here. Noah 22:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #D948D9 at 23:51, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — Is there a reason the tropical storm color has been made more similar to the tropical depression color? It is less distinguishable on the maps than before. Additionally, from an aesthetic perspective, the proposed category 5 color stands out like a sore thumb compared to the gradient of the rest of the scale. – atomic𓅊7732 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• It was made a tiny bit darker to give a bit more contrast between it and the C1 color for the colorblind folks. Noah 01:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. It would be confusing to our readers as the Cat 4 color would be applied to Cat 3 and the Cat 5 color would be applied to Cat 4. Also, I disagree with the Cat 1 color for the SSHWS: Noah stated that Category 1 colors were left untouched but in the proposed color table, Cat 1 was changed from #FFFFCC" to #FFFF80", which is really similar to the current Cat 2 color. Also, the current colors were never confusing to my eyes, and without a wider survey taken, there is not enough evidence to claim the current colors being an ACCESS issue. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 00:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In fact, the proposed Cat 1 and Cat 2 colors are even more indistinguishable than the current ones. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 00:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak oppose as Noah states that under WMF policy discrimination based on disability is outlawed. Here's my proposal: Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 03:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It's a bit interesting to see the polarity of this discussion: on one hand there's those like Noah, CF71, L&D, and I who have been having issues with the color contrasts (a few of which have been looking at these maps for years), and then there's other a few other editors who have never had that issue. If there's already at least four non-colorblind people affected by this, then how much more colorblind people are affected? Besides that: this is a friendly reminder that the colors are negotiable — you can freely recommend other changes you think are better, rather than simply call colors "ugly" (which is both subjective and isn't constructive to the discussion). Chlod (say hi!) 00:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting: ACCESS is a guideline. "Ugly" is not. Chlod (say hi!) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sure we could look up like, the 7 most scientifically accessible and color-blind-friendly colors, or pick like 7 colors at random as far apart as possible on the color wheel, but they would probably not look very good. And certainly there would be an argument to be made to use them anyway (if they were actually significantly more useful than the current colors), however clearly aesthetics are part of the consideration here, since that has not been done. Not to mention, looking similar to the previous color scale is also something that people value. – atomic𓅊7732 00:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  The proposal here isn't to be the most scientifically accessible: that defeats the purpose of creativity. The proposal is to change the colors to make it more distinguishable not only for colorblind people but also for those who aren't. I was suggesting that those leaning oppose would suggest colors that you would agree more to rather than simply call the colors "ugly" in order to have an actually constructive discussion. Chlod (say hi!) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Even in the proposed version, the SCS/STS/C2 and VSCS/TC/C3 colours appear like they could be confused with each other, as they remain very similar. SolarisPenguin (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• hold that thought as there may be a better color scheme even though mine has been thought out. Noah 01:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @SolarisPenguin: What do you think of the modified version? Noah 03:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Not much to say here, but it's actually a really cool idea to make the SSHWS colors more accessible to colorblind people. I won't give it a strong support as the old colors were so widespread and well known that it would probably take time to adjust everything, but I'm pretty sure we can adjust real smoothly. I really don't care whos proposal gets in as they all are pretty good at their purpose. (Edit, changed to weak support for the points I listed previously. (Edit 2, yes I know I am indisicive but im changing to oppose for basically the same reasons as Mario.)) Vortex4020 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you another user or something? This account has a total of six edits on Misplaced Pages and frankly the participation here doesn't make too much sense. United States Man (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I generally don't mind changing the colours here, however I'd like to see further tweaking so current readers don't get confused, as the proposed Cat 4 colours are near-identical to the current Cat 5 colours, same thing down to Cat 1. AC's version is somewhat better, but I still do have similar complaints. AveryTheComrade (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @AveryTheComrade: The issue is that there are limited number of options for us to use that contrast sufficiently with either the land or the water, has a clear progression of colors, and is good for colorblind issues. This is why many colors are similar to the current ones. This is really unavoidable to be honest due to all the constraints. I think with the map kep included and maybe a note of some kind, readers would be fine. Noah 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – I really don’t think this is the best idea in the long run as it is far more likely that there is public pushback against this since we have used this for over a decade and I personally see no issue with the coloring we have right now. I should mention that because of this the new colors may give the impression of stronger storms when being recalled with the old color scheme (even with a key in the image box, which is something that I really do not like especially the C3/4/5 debacle. I should also mention that some wikis revolving around such colors for TCs and tornadoes will have to undergo major changes/end up being inaccurate wiki wide and that is something I don’t want to see happen. I know this was made in good faith but I don’t think it’ll work sadly given how long it’s already been in place. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 04:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I can't help but point out that just because you personally see no issue, doesn't mean we're not supposed to push this change. Accessibility has been a longstanding goal not only by Misplaced Pages but by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, as declared in the WMF Board of Trustees nondiscrimination resolution. Additionally, the reason why we made the proposal here instead of WT:WPTC is because we wanted the attention of all involved weather projects — including the opinions of those in WikiProject Severe Weather among others. Chlod (say hi!) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  If it bothers WPSVR that much, we can simply branch off a different template for the Fujita scale, among others. Chlod (say hi!) 05:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – Like others here, I also don't think changing the color scheme that has been used for over a decade is a good idea. The colors have become commonplace all over wikipedia and it is absolutely pointless to change them now and cause confusion. United States Man (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Humans are quick to adapt to anything: even a global pandemic. There is no reason that someone won't be able to adapt to simple color changes on a map with the legend provided to them. MOS:ACCESS has had over a thousand revisions since 2010, and newer guidelines have been made successively throughout the years. WPTC (and in proxy, WPWX) has simply failed to meet up to those expectations, which is why we're trying to change that before this becomes even more of a long-term pain in the ass that we need to drag around for the next 10, 20, 30 years. Misplaced Pages has always been about changing something if it seems wrong: that's what WP:BOLD is all about, so I really don't see anything policy-based or guideline-based (or at the very least, "wiki-improving") about "has been used for over a decade" Chlod (say hi!) 05:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS, ChessEric, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Yellow Evan, and Jason Rees: This may be of interest to you, whether you support, oppose, or are neutral in the matter. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Even with a legend, people might still get confused with the new colours due to their similarities (even if the colours themselves are somewhat different), and it will take a long time to change everything. Many other wikis also use Misplaced Pages-style tracks, and they would have to adapt quickly, which would take a lot of work. However, if a change happens, I believe that we should go with AC's idea. SolarisPenguin (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support for changing the color scheme, but oppose the proposed replacement. I agree that the current colors are too similar. I myself have sometimes had trouble distinguishing C2/3 and C3/4 on the map. However, color scales for ordinal data should be consistent and intuitive (e.g. consistently redder and/or darker with increasing values). Having colors become progressively darker with increasing intensity, and then suddenly lighter for C5 is neither consistent nor intuitive. AC's idea below is a bit better, but assigning the current color scheme's colors to different categories (e.g. the current C5 color going to C4) would be confusing to people accustomed to the color scale we've used for years. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @TornadoLGS and Hurricane Noah: This is why I made the C4 color in my proposal lighter than the current magenta shade. I propose changing Cat 4 to   #E20707. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I still do not understand the change for the Cat 1 color. The current color poses no challenge to color-blind people with the other proposed colors. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Going back to my oppose, I would support if there was a compromise of their being two tracks, the original map and the colorblind friendly map. Vortex4020 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Netural While I can see that updating the colours maybe a good idea for our colour blind users, I am not sure that the benefits outweigh the consequences.Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I like the idea, but the color change seems a bit too drastic for my likingChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
• Neutral Personally, I do like the current color scheme, but I do understand that there are accessibility concerns raised and won't oppose changing to address them. I would prefer, however, that the least changes are done to the color scheme to address the concerns. I can see how the Categories 2, 3 and 4 colors may have issues and can see the need to address them, but I don't know if the Category 1 color needs to be adjusted, for example. — Iunetalk 23:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

AC's Idea

• I decided to be useful, and propose some slight changes. I made the C1 a bit darker to fit with the brightness transition, and the C5 a smoother purple for that reason and to make it easier on the eyes. I plan on adding a Strong TS color soon - it'll be a bit darker to match the new C1. How does this look? (I personally think I like it.) ~ AC5230 talk 02:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Postnote: I also kept the TS and TD colors from the old color system. They're good as-is. ~ AC5230 talk 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• I've now created a rough draft Severe TS color, but I'm not sure it fits. Anyone have any ideas? ~ AC5230 talk 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• UPDATE 9:58 PM EST - Settled on a STS (Severe Tropical Storm, not to be confused with (if you know, you know)) color. I have it all up with colorblindness effects on this website. ~ AC5230 talk 02:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Comment - I think this looks better than the other suggestion, however I think that the TS and STS colours could be confused for each other, and some other colours could be changed. however, other than that, it's easier for colourblind people than the current style, although I don't see the issue with the style we have right now. SolarisPenguin (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, I liked your STS color suggestion (on HHW Discord). I've put it on there. ~ AC5230 talk 21:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose This is better then the proposal above, but, per my other comment above, I think shifting the same colors to different categories (Current C5 to C4 and current C4 to C3) would be confusing to people who are accustomed to the current color ramp; more confusing than a completely new color ramp. 18:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs)
  • Keeping most of the original colors albeit moving some is the point. I wanted to keep true to the original style but also utilize the new proposed scheme. I'll agree it'll take some getting used to but all-in-all it is worth it. ~ AC5230 talk 21:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Compressing the color ramp is probably the best way in increase contrast. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• UPDATE - Added the colorblindness conversions for current and proposed directly into the table, à le Noah, and want to reiterate the new STS color courtesy of Solaris. ~ AC5230 talk 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Added extratrop (unchanged) and PTC/disturbance (now darker than TD). ~ AC5230 talk 00:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Brightened PTC color. ~ AC5230 talk 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

LGS's color scheme

I fiddled around with colors on my own and ended up with this. My main issue with other proposals was that the colors trended toward darker and warmer colors with increasing intensity, and snapped back to a lighter and/or cooler color for C5, so I kept a warmer color for C5 in this chart. It's more intuitive in my mind. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment – Cat 5 pops out on a dark background better if it's lighter. My issue with the original proposal (which has been fixed now) is that the cat 5 color simultaneously stuck out like a sore thumb because of the hue difference but also felt muted compared to cat 4 because it was too dark. Remember that these colors will be displayed on a dark background, so lighter colors will provide more contrast. I think Cat 5 should probably be the "brightest" and center of attention/focus for any map it shows up on. – atomic𓅊7732 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Atomic7732: I don't want to go too light, though. As I've said before, a color ramp should be intuitive and internally consistent. (e.g. having colors get darker and redder with increasing intensity). My main issue with the color scheme at the top of this thread is that it is not intuitive that the proposed cat 5 color represents a higher intensity than the cat 4 color. I might go with   if a lighter cat 5 color is needed, but I think it stands out fine against the ocean background used in the maps , though seeing it now, I might still need to put a bigger color gap between cat 3 and cat 4. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Base map

Has anyone considered using something other than commons:File:Blue_Marble_2002.png for the base map? I have a feeling creating a linear colour scale would be much less complicated if we didn't have to deal with the existing green, blue, and brown of the blue marble map. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any other options for a base map? Jason Rees (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There's commons:File:BlankMap-World-Equirectangular.svg, which is in the public domain and probably not too hard to recolour. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of us colouring in the map as I doubt we would not be able to agree on the colours and it would probably count as original research, after all what colour the ocean or a certain point in Africa is? Jason Rees (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Would be nice to revisit this, since some colors suggested further on do collide with the Blue Marble background. Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 15:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Redux: New RfC (February 2022)

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.

Which color scheme is more accessible?

The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below SSHWS colors, which increase the contrast between the hurricane colors. Please place comments in the formal discussion section below. Noah 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed colors

Given the concern raised by @Asartea:, I think we should revisit this. I have reopened the discussion which was prematurely archived without closure. I think the history of the discussion should remain intact, however, I do think we should leave the past behind in terms of this discussion. The table below is mostly what AC had proposed, but there was a slight change to some colors. Noah 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparison images

Original on the left; proposed on the right
I apologize for the low-quality visuals for the proposed colors. I did the best I could. Noah 23:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on the proposed scheme

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.

Please leave any feedback here without supporting or opposing (formal discussion to happen at a later time). We need to work together to make a better proposal. We have three things to keep in mind... contrast between colors, contrast between the colors and the map, and contrast between the colors and links. Noah 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I never noticed that there was a color difference between disturbance and depression. Can I see what those colors might look like? In the map for Ivan (listed above), the disturbance and TD colors look the same. I'm only wondering based on the background that we use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we ever actually had differing colors for tropical depressions and disturbances, since the difference between the two was always denoted by a shape change (triangle for post-trop, circles for tropical depressions and stronger). Chlod (say hi!) 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chlod and Hurricanehink: IIRC The color for disturbance was slightly lighter than tropical depression, almost to the point of being unnoticable. I think a change may be needed for infoboxes (to make it more noticeable), but not for the maps. Noah 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I just color dropped from Harvey's map, and both points for disturbance and depression are  #5ebaff. It's more the matter that this color represents winds below 34 knots, regardless of whether it's a TC, EC, disturbance etc. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, the proposal parts for disturbance/PTC and ET are just for infoboxes since there are differences between colors there. Noah 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the changes also apply to maps? It might be confusing to use two different color schemes for maps and templates. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: We already have two different schemes in that regard. ET is gray in infoboxes but colored on maps w/ triangles. PT is a slightly lighter blue in infoboxes currently but same color as TD on maps. If we would want to adopt the regular scheme for ET, it would require some additional changes for templates since they currently do not differentiate between intensity for ET other than <64 kn and ≥64 kn. I would be okay with making disturbance a different color from TD to give a bit more distinction since it's not a cyclone during those stages. Noah 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like for all the colors to match up with the Infoboxes. Otherwise, I like and support the proposed changes. One slight note - should we rank the Categories using the same color scheme, such as the Regional Snowfall Index, the Enhanced Fujita scale, etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: If we gave tornadoes a separate color scheme, that would require changing tens of thousands of entries in tables. So, I'd be opposed to that unless the task could be automated. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe Asartea's intention was for us to review the new colors in User:Asartea/sandbox, not reintroduce a rehashed version of the previous color scheme (which still has significant issues with links on colored backgrounds). In such a case, the proposed scheme would be (from TD to C5):        .

In any case, this is probably a step in the wrong direction. I'm opposed to using the above colors proposed above for infoboxes. In fact, it would be even more of an ACCESS violation to use the above since   purple has an even lower contrast rate with links (2.51) compared to the   previous Category 5 color (2.88). Chlod (say hi!) 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Could we simply step around this issue by formatting templates so that linked text is not placed against colored backgrounds? Adding contrast with links on top of other accessibility requirements is just making this more of a headache. The only place I know where linked text regularly appears on a background using these colors is the top of the storm infobox. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Found a solution to both problems and will be adding it in shortly. Noah 02:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chlod, Hurricanehink, and TornadoLGS: I removed the ET color and I modified all the others and believe them to be both colorblind compliant, AA compliant, and maintains a scaling color scheme. Thoughts? Noah 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I tested out these colors in photoshop using a screenshot of the sample map given above. When actually put to a map, the colors don't have good contrast, especially between category 4 and category 5. The main issue, I think, is that it leans too heavily on pastels. I also think the scaling breaks down for cat 4 and 5. Ideally, it should be intuitive that, e.g. the category 5 color represents a greater intensity than the category 4 color without the viewer even needing to look at the legend (honestly that is one strength of the current colors). Since the color scheme I proposed earlier never got any support, I would say AC's does the best job of that. I like LightandDark2000's idea, though, of not putting links in colored parts of templates, though.TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000 and TornadoLGS: I listed both options above. I readded the previous version to show what we have. Removing the links would definitely lift a large burden off of us in determining colors. Noah 03:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the color scheme in Astartea's sandbox; Strongly Support AC/Noah's New Color Proposal; Neutral on the current proposal (as of this writing), probably tilt oppose on that one. I agree that the current coloring system can use some changes, even if we don't agree on the exact system to go by. My favorite option so far is the one proposed by AC & Noah. The colors there are easily distinguishable (and definitely distinguishable for colorblind individuals), have a nice color progression, and is similar to the current coloring system. While I understand the WP:ACCESS concerns behind Astartea's proposal, those colors are inconsistent (no clear progression in shading and/or hue), not really aesthetically pleasant, and the lighter hues make it even harder to distinguish the colors. Thus, that system is a no-go for me. While the current proposal is better, I don't like how all of the shades have been lightened in color for a number of reasons. While it does have a clear progression, the lighter shades do make some of the colors appear closer to each other, and the new coloring system just doesn't seem to fit together as well - it seems a little jarring. I do believe that the current coloring system could use some improvements, but I don't believe that the latest proposal is the best possible version. And I will not back a coloring scheme unless I will be comfortable seeing the said system implemented on all of our weather articles and storm maps - as there are thousands of articles and track map images using these colors, we have to get it right the first time. These same colors are used for the tornado intensity scaling (F and EF scales) and winter storms (RSI). So we need a single, unified system. As for those Weather project users who oppose changing the colors just because they don't like the idea, or they feel that redoing all of the maps would be too much of an issue, I have this to say: Your personal opinions do not override project policy. As for the task of redoing the maps, Chlod has discussed ways to redo the maps by bots in a number of discussions off-wiki - all we need is for the track map generator data to be present on the images' Commons pages to do that. A bot can be written to automatically redo the track maps. So changing the colors is doable. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether or not the coloring system gets changed, I propose removing the links entirely from the colored part of the infobox. While it's nice to have the links there, I don't think they're necessary. We could link them elsewhere, or have those terms explained elsewhere in the articles using the templates. Given our difficulties in agreeing on a new coloring system, if the links are that much of an WP:ACCESS problem, then let's just remove the links entirely. Then, we can focus on whether or not to change the color system (and which new system we should use) without having to worry about bending over backwards just to accommodate the links. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  @LightandDark2000: This has already been done with {{infobox weather event}}, along with even more fixes that take into consideration much of ACCESS (besides the warnings section for now, because I was not involved in its creation). When we'll be able to transition to this improved infobox style, however, I have no clue. As for replacing the current infoboxes and templates, I suggest not counting on it, since those boxes are too much of a template hellhole to mess with and not break anything. Chlod (say hi!) 04:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chlod: You can transition to this new infobox style, once there has been an on-wiki discussion (RFC) and consensus to transition to it, since its a MAJOR change. However, I would argue that it's better to be simpler and call upon 1 infobox than call upon 5 separate infoboxes. I would also argue that we need to be careful over which warning centre is shown at the peak, especially with a system in the SHEM, where the peak could have come from a combination of MFR, BMKG, PNG NWS, BoM, MFNC, FMS, NZMS or MSNZ.Jason Rees (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: There are no "5 seperate infoboxes", there is only one (as looking at the documentation of {{infobox weather event}} would have already shown you). Each template is not a new infobox. The reason why it might appear that way is because each template provides a new scale to the box. This easily deals with the fact that we have one infobox with a large amount of parameters (e.g. in {{infobox tropical cyclone current}}, where there is category, AUScategory, JMAtype, JMAcategory, IMDtype, IMDcategory, MFRtype, and MFRcategory) with no further support for other agencies. Additionally, the order of what warning center can easily be changed by simply changing the order of the templates, unlike our existing infoboxes which do not provide this functionality and is instead fixed to one specific order. In case you want to show the precedence of one specific agency, you can just transclude the correct (or additional) agenc(y/ies), since the new infobox is based on issuing agencies, not specific sections of the world. With Wikidata, I can even compress the box to no longer require any parameters. WikiProject Anime and manga has had this modular template construction style since at least 2005, and it certainly also fits well with the massively-decentralized storm information centers we have around the world. Chlod (say hi!) 14:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sub-proposal 1: Links in the colored regions of infoboxes and templates

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 links be removed from the colored areas of infoboxes and templates or remain? Noah 03:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support – While I would've liked keeping the links, since they seem to be causing so many issues with WP:ACCESS, I think we should just remove them entirely. The links can simply be moved elsewhere in the template, or just addressed within the articles themselves. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Root of the cause. Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 17:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal If we remove links from colored areas, the only WP:ACCESS issue is ensuring that the colors are sufficiently distinct from each other, which we've already come a long way in doing. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The status quo has sufficiently different colors, I believe, that WP:ACCESS does not apply. (Feel free to reply if you disagree.) 🐔dat (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Chicdat: You realize this subsection is just about removing or keeping links in the colored regions of templates and not about the above color change proposal? Some of the colors do not pass AA compliance when there are links in those areas of the infobox. LightandDark proposed to simply remove the links from the colored regions of infoboxes since that was the root of that problem. Noah 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't realize that. But what do you mean by removing links from colored areas? 🐔dat (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• For example, Template:Infobox tropical cyclone has a link to the scale at the top within the category specific colored region. Most of the current colors fail AA in some manner against either the regular link color or the visited link color. The proposal was simply to remove the links from those areas of all our templates. Articles should have links to the scales and other things in both the lead and body anyways. Noah 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I support that. After all, the links will always be in other parts of the article. 🐔dat (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Chlod (say hi!) 23:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Formal discussion (RfC)

Please leave comments related to the RfC here. Noah 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Noah 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Accessibility matters and all projects should strive towards it. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Support – Per the proposer. This needs to happen. We've already agreed to remove the links from the color bar sections of the various infoboxes we use for the storms and tornadoes, and now, we need to finish the rest of the work. The current colors have accessibility issues. Some of the colors are difficult to tell apart for readers with normal vision, like me and Noah, and the current color scheme uses multiple colors that have shades too similar to each other for colorblind or disabled readers to tell apart. For the SSHWS scale (the main coloring system used, and the one used for the NATL and EPAC hurricane basins, and the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita scale for tornado articles), the Cat 1–4 colors are simply too close too each other, especially for Cat 1 vs. Cat 2, and Cat 2 vs. Cat 3, where the color contrasting is the worst. I have difficulty telling apart the Cat 1–4 colors at times, especially when the most similar shades are right next to each other (mostly in the cases I outlined earlier). Oftentimes, I find myself having to open up the track map images to their full resolutions just to differentiate some of the specific track points, and even then, I still have issues in some cases. And I consider myself to have very good color vision. If I'm struggling with differentiating the colors with the current system, then a whole multitude of other readers have this issue as well, especially our users with colorblindness or other vision issues. We don't have any of these issues with the new, proposed coloring system. Not only are the new colors much easier to differentiate for people with normal color vision (myself included), but they're also much easier to differentiate for colorblind individuals, as illustrated in the charts and the images above. Additionally, the newer coloring system is largely similar to the current system (so there's that element of familiarity), and the color progression feels natural and easy to follow, making the newer system an excellent solution. As such, I believe that we should replace the current coloring system with the newer one proposed by Noah and AC. For those people who are opposed to changing the current coloring system just because you favor the old system or think that no changes are needed, let me remind you of a couple of things: 1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the changes shouldn't go forward, and 2) Accessibility matters. On the issue of replacing the track maps, Chlod has already proposed a way of dealing with this problem, by coding a bot account to automatically generate new track maps with the new coloring system. This can be done on any track map for which the track map generator data, and the vast majority of track map images do have the track map generator data displayed on Commons. The others can be manually updated. On the issue of people being used to the old system, I would like to repeat what Chlod said earlier, which is that humans can and do adapt to changes. This is another change that we'll simply have to adapt to. The new coloring system is similar to the old one, so it shouldn't be too jarring for those used to the older system, but at the same time, it makes the colors much easier to differentiate and also more accessible to our colorblind readers, which needs to happen. Also, WP:ACCESS is a site-wide Misplaced Pages policy. Familiarity (or status quo) is not. All things considered, I think this is a good proposal and one that we should implement. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support At this point, I don't think further discussing the color scheme will get us far. While I've voiced my own ideas for colors, I think anything beyond what I've already said would be nitpicking. The proposed colors improve contrast for both normal-sighted and colorblind individuals. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. Tom94022 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment What are the proposed colors again? 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Chicdat: The colors table under the RfC banner. Noah 11:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support This proposal leaves out the bad part of the earlier proposal and keeps the good. 🐔dat (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I like it, and it makes sense to change the colors (which were picked decades ago without accessibility concerns). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral, I still do not feel like a color change is still warranted given the same reasoning I had in the original RfC. The contrast in maps against the blue ocean are strong for the original scheme, land is still hit or miss (that's going to be the case for any proposed scheme), and the contrast between different category colors are close to where I personally see a good compromise between aesthetics and accessibility residing. I do not mind the proposed scheme, however, strongly encourage further experimenting with the Severe TS and C1 colors. They are not great. Supportstorm (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox & Template colors

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the above colors for the maps also be adopted for infoboxes and other weather templates using the same scale? Should the timeline background color be changed for all weather articles?

It has been brought to my attention that the above RfC may not have been clear about the entire scope of the changes. Given that consensus was achieved above to remove links from infoboxes for colored regions, that contrast aspect is no longer an issue. However, two issues still remain. Some people have mentioned above that they want to keep consistency between the maps and the infoboxes as it could be confusing if there are differences between the two. Additionally, the color blindness issue still remains for those who use colors to tell apart different statuses as the same contrast issue between colors exists, especially when multiple statuses are in an infobox for different agencies. This proposal increases the contrast between colors in infoboxes and other templates which use the same scale to match the maps which were changed in the above RfC. I recently also discovered a serious breach of MOS:ACCESS on the timelines where the TS color blends in with the background for folks who possess a color blindness. Another header is added below to provide a change that in conjunction with the new colors will fix that issue as well. Noah 15:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed colors

SSHWS colors

The colors in the first table are the same that were proposed in the RfC above.

Enhanced Fujita scale (for tornadoes)

In the spirit of keeping the scales consistent across Misplaced Pages, I have proposed using the TS and C1-C5 colors above for the EF scale. This is more similar to the scale used by the NWS, however, I think we should try to keep scales somewhat consistent across weather.

Western Pacific (JMA)

Southern Hemisphere

North Indian Ocean

North American winter storms (RSI scale)

Example

Here is a rendering of how infobox statuses and timelines may be confused due to the similarities in colors. Certain template text is slightly smaller than prose text and could be harder for some editors to read. If more statuses are added down the road (specifically WPAC) as an example, then the current problem could be amplified.

Proposed timeline background change

I propose changing the timeline background to   #fffcf4 to alleviate the MOS:ACCESS breach caused between the current background and the longstanding tropical storm color. This assumes that the colors for statues are changed to the new colors. If not, then this background may not work against the current color scale scheme.

• Support This would just be a part of the proposed color scheme change so the BG color would only change if the other ones do. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• I Support This change as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the timeline. It really helps for colorblind people that the timelines have the storm categories right next to their names, so even if they are colorblind, they still know what category the storm is. 🐔dat (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Chicdat: The issue is they can't see how long the storm lasted on the timeline. Look at an example of the colorblind one below for the current timeline, particularly red color blindness. Noah 12:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support Seeing the length is very convenient. 🐔dat (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Examples of proposed change

Current timelines

Discussion

• Support as proposer. Noah 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• COMMENT: Also working on a fix for the current MOS:ACCESS failure for the timeline experienced due to the TS color. Noah 15:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Sennecaster, LightandDark2000, TornadoLGS, CycloneFootball71, Chicdat, Tom94022, Hurricanehink, and Supportstorm: Pinging everyone who participated in the recently closed RfC discussion since it has been brought to my attention that the scope may have been misleading and some may have thought it was just maps and others may have thought it was for everything. The goal was to keep the scales consistent between maps and the on-wiki templates. I am sorry if anyone was confused. The closed RfC above will only apply to the maps as it was pointed out to me that I didn't specifically mention anything else. Noah 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec. You're saying we're going ahead with changing colors in the maps but not the templates? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• @TornadoLGS: The maps aren't getting changed right now as a bot has to be coded for that. We would then have to decide a timeline for implementing them once the bot is ready. I was told off-wiki that since templates and other scales were not explicitly mentioned in the original proposal that the consensus for that RfC can't apply to them. Even if it was implied that everything was going to be changed to match up, the consensus only applies to the maps. Noah 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I figured it was assumed that we wouldn't change one without the other. I think WP:NOTBURO applies in this case. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree with you, but there are others who may not. I did discover another MOS:ACCESS issue that affects every season article and timeline article as a result of this. That issue is also being considered here and would simply require AWB to implement. This issue would affect hundreds of articles. Keep in mind the timeline background would be altered for all weather articles as well. Noah 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So, one thing I've also realized, since we're talking about keeping maps and templates consistent, is that we've started incorporating maps into annual tornado articles, so far only at Tornadoes of 2021 and Tornadoes of 2022. They currently use the NWS color scheme, or something close to it, but we should include those in this color scheme as well. The may be access issues between the EF1 and EF3 colors . Pinging @Supportstorm: since they did both of these maps. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I realize my wording above is ambiguous. I mean we should use the new color scheme for the tornado maps. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Chose the colors since they look well on the map. Personally don't see an issue with the EF1 and EF3 colors, but I'm absolutely done discussing project color changes. I'll change it to whatever is agreed upon. Supportstorm (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Support All the proposed changes, per my reasoning in the earlier RfC above. Accessibility is important, and the newer coloring system would clearly work better than the current one. We've already agreed to implement the color changes; this just confirms the color changes in the remaining templates that utilize our storm colors. As for the Timeline background color, accessibility also needs to apply there as well, and the proposed light background color (very light grey) is both more accessible and aesthetically pleasant. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support To make my position clear. I agree with keeping keeping tornado colors the same as hurricane colors because 1) It saves the work of reworking thousands of entries in tornado tables and 2) the NWS colors have access issues which I brought up above. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline for implementation

Now that the RfC is officially closed with consensus for all the changes, we have to decide on a timeline for implementation. I realize we can't easily implement the past maps immediately as we currently do not have a bot for that. However, I think that we can begin implementing the color changes for the 2022 NIO, WPAC, ATL, and EPAC seasons since they either have not started or their current maps with storms will not change color-wise as a result of this switch. I am going to work to get the timeline changes immediately implemented due to the ACCESS issue it concerns and will work to get the colors for our templates changed as well. There will be a lag any way we do this between templates in articles and the maps, however, I think it's prudent to change as much as we can immediately knowing everything will be the same color-wise in the end. Noah 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

wptc-track will definitely need some changing (namely scales.c) for track map changes. According to some preliminary categorization I've done a few months back, 466 existing images will require manual regeneration, or at least require a human on the helm to see if the track map being generated is correct and represents the actual cyclone (based on other data on the {{WPTC track map}} template). 3,051 images have track data embedded, so regeneration wouldn't be hard and would be close to accurate. 1,846 images have command execution input, which can be a bit unreliable if the original data has been deleted/changed, but if particularly problematic, can just be verified by humans (and wouldn't take that long for the humans to scan).

Of course, the hard part is actually making the bot that will do all this work. Pinging PurpleLights, who I know has some development experience and is still highly active in the project. Chlod (say hi!) 04:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that the color changes have been implemented in the templates, I think that the timeline changes should be implemented, ASAP. This can be done via AutoWikiBrowswer. As for the track map images, they have to be redone, but the vast majority of them can probably be automatically recreated by a bot, since most of them have their track data available on their Commons page. The rest can be manually recreated. We need a new bot to do this, and it's going to take some time, but hopefully, we can get all of the track maps redone within a few months of the bot being set up. I think this summer to the start of next winter is a reasonable time frame when it comes to when to expect this task to be completed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This honestly was a very rushed and poorly executed plan. I am pretty sure there was no consensus reached before so this whole sudden 180 seems foul. Barely anyone else had a say in the later phase and it would’ve been much better to alert others to the possible plan instead of just going right at it. Also, the color change is likely to attract more vandals changing borderline C4/5 storms to C5 bc they think the red color is C5. Additionally this is probably gonna provoke a massive backlash in the weather community. I propose to revoke the changes and have a much more discussion about how to move forward with the possible problems from views of all sides, not by just going off 2 or 3 people’s opinions. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 03:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as we would be reintroducing WP:ACCESS issues for the timeline and removing the new scheme for maps which fixes the issues. We have finely tuned this scheme against the map and the colors against each other to have a scale that progresses naturally and is accessible to all. The new scale clearly states colors (see template for scale in articles) and yes, confusion is likely at first, but that will happen with any change. It takes time for people to get used to a change and that isn't a reason to avoid the change. Noah 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the color scale is not good at all. All it did was make it look even more out of style and purple just does not work at all. This needs to be redrawn from the ground up as other proposals for new colors seem to have been deliberately left out and instead set on one that did not get enough comments on it. Why not just slightly modify the original colors to comply but still retain its faithfulness? Plus, it looks awful on the tornadoes part, especially the higher-end ones. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • We can't slightly modify all the colors slightly to improve contrast. There isn't much room to go with very similar colors. NWS actually uses purple for EF5, red for EF4, and orange for EF3. This is more inline with what they have. The problem is we have tried many different colors and we have a limited range that works for the maps. People who opposed the first time supported because they felt it was the best option and we had exhausted alternative schemes. I honestly think this is the best option we have. Noah 03:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • But why? Why can’t you give it a chance? We don’t have to be the same as the NWS. It also doesn’t serve to help that Sam’s TCR was released today with no upgrade to C5 - and now this color change is gonna have a lot of people assuming wrongly that it was upped to C5 because the old C5 color was made into the new C4 color. Ditto with Ida. I don’t think you want that on your conscious right? Also WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn’t really apply here, since changing the status quo that the entire community has gotten used to even before Twitter was invented is now changed and your probably gonna end up causing a lot of confusion now with this. Plus, some have even said the original colors didn’t really have an WP:ACCESS issue. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
        • We gave it a chance back in November and it ended in a no-consensus track wreck as a result. Discussion fizzled out on it. People could have proposed any alternative back then but they didn't. I tried to get input this time around as a result of the shortcomings of the prior discussion, but nobody checks project pages apparently and I can't ping everyone as it would be canvassing. That's not really my fault. As I have said before, any change will lead to confusion until people get used to it. It just takes time to get over. The ACCESS thing people were referring to was contrast between the map and the colors, which is what got tested way back when. The contrast between the colors themselves was not tested. Noah 10:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw the changes, and I'm not too happy to be fair. Personally I find the new colour scheme worse than the old - my eyes hurt when I look at the new one - and I would have preferred that the old one be kept. But this isn't a policy-based reason to oppose the new scheme, so I have no standing to complain, I suppose, especially as I have normal vision; MOS:ACCESS takes precedence over WP:IDONTLIKEIT, after all. JavaHurricane 03:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on the changes are as follows: simply put my preference is with the old color scheme. This new change has a great purpose, one I’m all for and it is actually well-thought out in a lot of areas (props to AC, who’s actually done well in what he’s set out to do despite the criticisms). My biggest issue lies with the colors themselves. They simply don’t make too much sense to me from a progression standpoint, notably in Categories 3–5. There have also been complaints from others about Categories 1–2. Another thing is execution; the change was sudden and not announced very well. It also could’ve included some (further) thought on the creation of something to allow for those in opposition to have a choice prior to the change. Those concerns aside though, similarly to what Java mentioned, the scheme does accomplish it’s original purpose of being more accessible and I can acknowledge that as a reason against opposing policy-wise. Lucarius ~ 03:59, March 19 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose reverting the changes, per the reasons given by Noah. This subject was already discussed in about 3 successive RfCs for the past few months in the sections above, and the relevant WikiProjects were literally notified of the ongoing RfC with banners on their pages. We can't wait forever, and it's not our fault more people weren't paying attention. Also, reversing the changes would reintroduce the old problems we were dealing with. And discussing these issues again really isn't going to produce a different outcome; all we'll get is a similar result, if not a deadlock. I think that retreading this issue would be very counterproductive and a waste of time, so I don't think we should do this. Anyway, it takes time for people to get used to change. And you can't please everyone. This is another one of those cases. While not everyone is pleased with the colors, they're clearly an improvement over the previous system, in terms of accessibility. And we came to a consensus in the said discussions. It's time to implement the results and move on. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is it counterproductive to revisit and come up with a better solution? This feels like you’re trying to exclude those who opposed it and want to go back and have a constructive conversation instead of rushing through changes that many are not gonna be proud of. I really think we need to go back and revisit this because it obviously was not carried through properly. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lean Support on revisiting this in my view. I understand the use of the Access request and complaints made about the original scale, so alas I understand the need to change it. What I don't understand is the particular scale we changed to. I liked the fact that the previous scale had a solid, strong gradient that made sense- and you could tell that higher up the gradient meant a stronger hurricane. Whereas, the implemented scale uses a bright pinkish/purple for C5, which doesn't make sense and the color implemented does not blend well with the red now being used for C4. Additionally, the fact that C5, C4, and C3 colors were knocked down the scale one could be seen as confusing to viewers. Essentially, one of two things needs to happen in my view:

a) an overhaul from whatever the access issue pointed out as a particular issue with the scale (which seems to be the C1/C2 colors in most proposals) and just overhaul up. b) just completely overhaul/change the scale entirely, which would be better than just shifting the entire scale one down and adding a new C5 color because of possible confusion for readers/could solve visibility issues while still keeping a scale with reasonable gradients.

In either case I don't believe the current scale to be the fix of our problems. -DaneH20 — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support for revisiting the new scale. While changing the scales to comply with WP:ACCESS is a good idea, I believe it has been executed poorly (not AC's fault, by the way). My main problem is that the color progression in the new scale is really odd, especially from category 3 to 5. The old Category 4 color is now the Category 3 color, and the old Category 5 color is the new Category 4 color, and this is likely to lead to confusion. I've also seen people who have said that the Category 1 and Category 2 colors remain to similar. It may be better to have a scale with similar progression to the old one, however slightly more exaggerated differences between categories. However, that's just my opinion. SolarisPenguin (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  This I can support. But apparently it “can’t work”, which I think it can. It also makes long-trackers like Irma look way more intense then it is in certain areas. Longtime trackers who are used to the old scale but don’t edit here are going to get very confused. I really think we should just go back to the old scale but fix the root of the problem which is the C1/2 colors, not the entire scale. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 05:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  COMMENT: @DaneH20, SolarisPenguin, and HurricaneEdgar: The contrast between colors has to be enough that they can be distinguished on small dots on a map. Slight adjustments didn't make all that much of a difference when I tested which is why we went with larger adjustments. As I have said before, confusion is likely to be only temporary. Confusion is likely to occur with any change. With all changes, any confusion passes with time as people get used to the changes. That's why we include map keys. As for color progression, it is about as natural as we can get. Dark red is out due to visibility on the map and pink is a no-go for the same reason... that leaves us with purple, which has some blue tint. Even the NWS uses something similar for the tornadoes: Orange for EF3, red for EF4, and purple for EF5. Additionally, we have the timeline accessibility issue to contend with. This new scale is in-line with the background change that fixes the TS color issue for red colorblindness (TS color shows up as gray and it was on a gray background). Our current scale and any minor adjustments does not and will not be appropriate for the background. Our scale needs to be able to be on a different shade of timeline background and have sufficient contrast on the maps. I think we have minimal room for adjustment here as a result. Noah 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah: My main problem with this proposal is how the category colors have been shifted down, and also the large jump between C4 and C5. While the confusion is temporary on WP, it might affect other services that use the now-old versions of WP tracks (Like the JTWC has done in the past). I'm all for changing the colors for ACCESS, however I believe it could've been executed better. C1 and C2, and potentially C3 and C4 are also too similar, while C2 and C3, and C4 and C5 are too different, jumping from light yellow -> orange and red -> purple. I think the C1 and C2 colors are fine, but the C3, C4 and C5 colors should be shifted slightly closer to C2, although not by a significant margin. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Purple is awful which is why it must be changed. I don’t get why you don’t want to give it a chance and instead are refusing to even do so. The previous colors appeared perfectly fine to me and already I am seeing backlash on WxTwx. The contrasts were perfectly fine as well and all this did was make it even worse. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @MarioProtIV: If you want a better solution, the only good option is to ditch the background and go with a political map rather than a terrain one. That will open up many more color possibilities and alleviate the pressure for conforming the scale. The one proposed off wiki doesn’t have enough contrast for small dots. Noah 15:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Political maps are just as awful and makes the map itself look very child-ish. Blue Marble background is the better one for all of them. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per SolarisPenguin said this new color is confusion in the reader, I would like to kept the old color in the template. HurricaneEdgar 04:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Specifically to you, this is an all-or-nothing change. People don't want to change one without changing the other so either we change everything to a new scheme or we change nothing at all. Consistency between maps and templates is a requirement for almost everyone here. We really tried to make the best possible scale given the obstacles we had to tackle. If we had a better alternative, it likely would have been proposed by this point and adopted. Noah 10:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Many people have an issue with the current C5 color, and while I get the concerns, there's really no alternative color that can be used for C5. A darker red such as   is the logical progression, however it's too close to land color. A lighter red will become too close to the C4 color, and a dark purple will become too close to the sea color. If purple can't be used, then the background map itself has to change to prevent colors becoming too similar to colorblind people. I would also like to note that the previous colors are not "perfectly fine", imagine trying to discern what color means which in the tiny space this file takes up in an article. Akbermamps 14:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment If the goal was consistency, then can't the track map colors be vibrant and then have a quantitative value be used to brighten the colors for infoboxes (i.e. HSL-wise, increase lightness and decrease saturation)? Seems better than having rainbow barf on season effects tables, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that if we just use the same hue. Chlod (say hi!) 14:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment First, I applaud the thought and cooperation that those involved put into this – huzzah! As some fine-tuning will likely be done, I would like to pass along two observation: the C1 color is a bit difficult to distinguish against the new background shading, and the C5 color makes the hyperlink text difficult to read. I understand and appreciate the complexities involved in developing a workable color scheme, and again say thank you for your work. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Drdpw I removed hyperlinks from info boxes for scales per consensus above as it doesn’t comply with any scale we have had. Noah 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment A couple project members have raised the issue in off-wiki communication that implementing the color changes to track maps would also affect other language Wikipedias and force color changes there even though they did not discuss it and which may have different policies on WP:ACCESS etc. This has been presented as a roadblock, but there is a compromise. I think a way around this would be to have bots create new files, instead of updating existing track maps. That way other Wikipedias could implement color changes, or choose not to, at their own pace. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This feels lke we are opening Pandoras Box, which is why I have tried to avoid commenting for now. However, if the track maps are being redone then they should all include data from the RSMC rather than the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support a better solution that changing the Cat 4 and 5 colors to red and purple. Oppose the introduction of the purple color. The best solution was to keep something that isn’t broken. Oh but that would offend somebody. United States Man (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose revoking the changes. The previous discussion sought out to reach consensus on making colors that are more color blind compliant. That consensus was achieved, which is not an easy feat given how many previous discussions there have been on this topic. Do I think there's some combination of colors out in the world that would look and work better than what was proposed here? Yeah, probably. But as it stands, these new colors fulfill the goal that was set and generally match the progression that other websites use as well. "I don't like it" is not a valid excuse in this discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose undoing the color change even if the new colors weren’t ideal, because I believe in inclusivity and @United States Man: WP:ACCESS can’t be ignored just because “I don’t like it”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also oppose reverting the changes per reasons given by Noah, Jasper Deng, L&D2000, and TropicalAnalystwx2013. The original grounds for changing the color scheme was to make it more accessible for users, and to help people with colorblindness and other vision issues differentiate the different colors with higher contrast. Many editors, (myself included) have mentioned how the original colors were difficult to see and tell apart among other things, and how the shades are too close to one another to tell apart for those with colorblindness and other troubles with sight. Per the words of @LightandDark2000: from a previous discussion, "For those people who are opposed to changing the current coloring system just because you favor the old system or think that no changes are needed, let me remind you of a couple of things: 1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the changes shouldn't go forward, and 2) Accessibility matters." And also "humans can and do adapt to changes. This is another change that we'll simply have to adapt to. The new coloring system is similar to the old one, so it shouldn't be too jarring for those used to the older system, but at the same time, it makes the colors much easier to differentiate and also more accessible to our colorblind readers, which needs to happen. Also, WP:ACCESS is a site-wide Misplaced Pages policy. Familiarity (or status quo) is not." I think what LightandDark said here basically sums up why it is futile to try and change back to our old coloring scheme, we are trying to accomodate all of our readers and editors,and that is by making the maps easier to see. I understand that some don't like the coloring scheme, but trying to change it back completely is frankly a bit selfish in the broad scheme of things. I am sure that we will eventually find better colors, but for now, the new ones suffice. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I’m not really a fan of the purple but I didn’t feel like battling the access fanatics, which is why I never joined the discussion to begin with. United States Man (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is not a complete support for the old color scheme. I would much rather the old colors return with the edits suggested by User SolarisPenguin below. Modifying the category 2 and 3 colors. The less we change the original color scheme while satisfying the accessibility issue caused by those two colors the better resolved this will be. Supportstorm (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - It, honestly, hurts to look at, and it may be confusing for people who are familiar with the old scale. Mobius Gerig (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wouldn’t this be strongly support if you’re saying the new ones hurt to look at? Just clarifying. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 18:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Mixed up the support with oppose. Thought support meant one liked the change. Mobius Gerig (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment I've noticed that the EF scale also changed with the Tropical Cyclone scale. It might be an unintended consequence of this change, but still. Mobius Gerig (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mobius Gerig: Do you have any thoughts on the newest proposal below? Noah 10:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be better to make some minor changes than to just basically start from scratch. Plus, the newer one looks good. Mobius Gerig (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

New proposal

@SolarisPenguin: recently made a new scale that is similar to the old one but fixed the issues with the C1/2/3 contrasts and has recently gotten some support off-wiki. Here is the new proposal (because I’m too lazy to throw this all into actual code to show - I’ll probably get to that later). --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 18:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The one issue with that color scale is, under deuteranopia, there is hardly any contrast between the severe tropical storm and category 2 colors. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

STS is not even really used at all on the track maps except for Infobox headers so that’s already taken care of. And rarely do the JMA screw up so bad as to have STS while JTWC has C2. And vice versa. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The new scale also has the same problem, as STS and C2 are quite similar as well. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

While this is similar to the color scale I proposed, was my actual proposal. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried out the proposals here (including one off-wiki) and the colors are still too close to each other. (solar's proposal: , ), (mario's proposal: , ), (off-wiki proposal: ). The only way to create enough contrast between the colors is to, say, shift C4 to C3, etc. I would also like to note that the C1 and TS colors we're currently using are still too close to each other, so maybe that can be fixed here. Akbermamps 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Shifting colors is not a good idea at all. It creates confusion just like the C3/4 colors were made the old C4/5 colors. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's a huge issue. It will take getting used to, but that's true of any change. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe this is avoidable. I originally tried to minorly alter the original colors such as Solaris has done above and it just didn't have enough contrast between colors. The problem is a limited range of color can only have so much contrast between the various shades. That's why I shifted C5 down to C4 and C4 down to C3. It cuts down on the number of shades of yellow/orange between TS color and the strong orange (former C4 one) color to 2 from 3. It's easier to show contrast between two shades of yellow/orange than it is three, and even more so if it were to have been four shades (a hypothetical fourth shade). More colors also increases the number of shades you can have for a scale. I realize you and some others don't like shifting colors and the introduction of purple, but these changes are actually more thought out than you have given us credit for. During the first RfC way back in November, I started off with a pretty poor scheme and tried to implement feedback I got from everyone in order to improve it. I discussed with some people what their thoughts were on a potential scale and took that into consideration as well. AC's scale, which was somewhat different from my final proposal there, got a decent amount of good feedback, so I decided to take it up for the new proposal. I yet again asked for feedback on the proposal during the second RfC, however, people felt it was fine and likely the best outcome we could hope for given all the hours we had spent discussing and formulating color schemes. We had to contend with having enough contrast between colors and the track map background, fixing the timeline background issue for the TS color, and having enough contrast between the colors themselves. I realize you don't like the scale we came up with, but it does accomplish everything it set out to do. Noah 12:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I get that but you are still opening Pandora’s box to a lot of confusion and misinformation by simply resorting to shifting colors, especially for borderline C4/5 storms like Sam and Jose, as well as EF4/5 tornadoes. I don’t think you want that to happen so the current color scheme needs to be reworked to fix that issue. It’s better to just look at the other proposals. Also FYI, I recall reading from someone saying the old scale didn’t really have any issues and was mostly compliant. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 15:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there would be confusion over any change, really, but it will be temporary. I showed the new colors to some non-Wikipedians (including one who does graphic design) who thought they looked fine. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not misinformation as we are not making anything factually incorrect. While it is leading to some confusion, that's only a temporary issue as people will adapt and become used to the scale with time. I have looked at the other proposals brought up and they don't solve the problem of having enough contrast between colors and being compatible with a new timeline background color. You have to realize with these alt proposals that have come up thus far is either they contrast enough against the timeline background and don't have enough contrast between colors or they contrast enough between colors and don't contrast enough against the timeline background. In regards to the compliancy, that was ACCESS compliance between the colors and the ocean background of the map, not between the colors themselves. Noah 22:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don’t seem to realize this is causing more people to mistake borderline storms and I don’t see how this is a temporary issue as this will mess up a lot of people’s perceptions of higher end storms. You may not think it’s misinformation but it’s damn near close when the old scale (which was in use for over a decade and in the minds of a lot of people) suddenly gets replaced with a new one that merry shifted colors down a scale and made C4 look like it’s actually C5. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 23:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: You’ve made this “misinformation” and “confusion” claim numerous times without any, actual, evidence that our readers are actually getting this confused. You’re not defeating the substance of Noah’s argument by saying people will change their perception of higher-end storms, since is bound to happen with any color scheme.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Other complaints I have heard off-wiki for the old scale is that orange for EF4/C4 seemed like it insinuated they were a moderate, common event rather than a strong one. They applauded the new scale for making the actual moderate look moderate. They liked seeing C4 be red and C5 as purple because it insinuates severe and very severe. Heck, even covid maps for state gov'ts (California and Ohio I know did this) used yellow, orange, red, purple as the progression. You act as if this came out of nowhere, however, it didn't. The adjustment is likely easier than you think considering people are used to seeing these covid maps showing purple as the next color after red. The main argument against including purple in the scale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This shift could actually be positive for us as it puts colors to the intensities where they match up in this day and age since purple really is the new red across the world. Yes, the old scale was in use for a decade. You made it quite clear in November you wouldn't support any change just because the old scale had been in use for such a long time. A similar thing would be saying racism is okay because it has been done for such a long time in the past. Just because it has been done for a long time doesn't mean it was right for us to have done to begin with. Hurricanehink even said that the colors a decade or so ago were likely picked out without accessibility concerns in mind. If something is displayed to be wrong and treat a group of people unfairly, it is our duty and obligation to fix that issue, making sacrifices if we need to. WP:ACCESS > aesthetics.... It's literally that simple. With these new guidelines (ones that were voted on) likely coming into effect soon, we could get into serious trouble if we take actions either as individuals or as a project that promote discrimination against certain groups of people, such as reverting to a scale that does not support the color blind. Again, I get you and others don't like the idea of shifting colors and using purple, but trying to toss everything out just to get the old scale back is very selfish and dishonorable. I didn't pursue this just for the hell of it. Someone has to fight for the color blind because we don't have very many, if any, with a full color blindness and it is quite clear that a decent chunk of this project just doesn't care. It makes me sick to see people put their own preferences over a group that has a disability. I stand here asking you and others to keep the changes enacted for the sake of the color blind as this fixes serious issues we have with WP:ACCESS. Noah 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

But why are you refusing to allow other proposals to be discussed such as those discussed off-wiki? Also how could we get into “serious trouble” if nothing happened regarding the old scale 'which was used for over a decade? The fact that @SolarisPenguin:’s and others proposals was thrown out because “it doesn’t meet all of the criteria/fails 1 out of the rest is quite honestly stupid. Also the argument with purple is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. It’s actually a bad color that goes against infoboxes and several people off-wiki have brought up concerns over it. Also, I and others are very aware of the colorblind community and that’s why we took to make proposals that fixed the issue at hand while not straying far from the original scale. Hell, even Supportstorm said the only issue with the old scale was the C2/3 transition, so it would seem far better to fix that while leaving the rest of the scale intact. So I’m asking, please consider those other proposals too as at this point it feels very immature to brush them off just because it doesn’t meet 100% of criteria (it should at least meet 75% or more). MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you not seen where Akbermamps and I have pointed out either A. it does not go well with a new timeline background color or B. it doesn't have enough contrast on the maps? We are allowing discussion of those proposals, but pointing out where they don't measure up to what we need. Both of these are requirements for any new scale. It's not stupid that it was thrown out because it doesn't meet all of the criteria. For example, either something is AA or it isn't. There isn't an "Oh... it meets 90% so it's fine for AA". It's a strict cutoff with no exceptions for a reason. Either we are accessible as possible or if we go with something that fixes 75% of the issues, we are discriminating against people with a disability in order to preserve the old scale. People have brought up both C1/C2 and C2/C3 as confusion areas, which is a large chunk of the scale. Purple is a bad color? It still meets AA on both normal black text and bolded black text. We have consensus above to remove links from every colored region of infoboxes and templates, so I don't see what the issue is here. In terms of getting into trouble, I have no clue, but big brother is likely going to be swinging around its battleaxe to enforce the new guidelines and stop any practices it deems go against the policy. We just have to wait and see what that entails. What is really immature is you reverting the changes three times because you disagree with the consensus. Noah 13:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for maps

I made this comment earlier, but I think it got overlooked. The issue was raised, in off-wiki discussion, that the track maps are used on other language Wikipedias in addition to the English Misplaced Pages. The folks there would be affected by this change even though they likely haven't discussed it and may not even be aware of this discussion. I suggest, therefore, that the bots in charge of images create new, separate images with the updated colors rather than update existing files. That way, those on other Wikipedias can choose whether to make the change at their own pace. I don't know to what extent their guidelines on accessibility might differ from the ones here. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support having the bots create separate images for the new tracks rather than overriding existing ones. Noah 11:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd move to snow close this as we don't have a choice here but to upload new images per c:COM:OVERWRITE. The consensus of the Wikimedia Commons community very clearly overrides the consensus of a WikiProject on just one language of Misplaced Pages. The proposed is automatic, lest we be mass-reverted upon uploading the newly-colored images. Unless, of course, cross-wiki consensus is gathered on Meta, which avoids having to implement a new naming scheme and mass duplication of images based on an extremely minute detail. Chlod (say hi!) 14:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Newest Proposal Yet

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which color scheme is more accessible? Which color scheme balances accessibility and aesthetics?

The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. We also have issues with the TS color and the timeline background for red color blindness (demonstrated in the above RfC). On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below colors, which increases the contrast between the weather colors. Please place comments in the discussion section below.

As a compromise between keeping the old scale and improving for WP:ACCESS for color blind, I propose the following new scale. I would also like to make it very clear, Consensus was reached above to NOT have ANY links on colored backgrounds so the below colors only need to have AA contrast against black text. Noah 22:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Colors

• Keep in mind that I am unable to produce maps on my own so I can't produce visual aids other than the table above. Noah 20:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
•   must be used for Category 5 in conjuction with any black text in place of the above in order to pass AA (very slight difference in shading).
• Up-to-date map (normal vision) link here

Old timelines

• These timelines show color blind perception of the timelines using the old scale.

Current timeline (Normal Vision)

Provisions

1. The colors above will be adopted in place of the scale which was approved via RfC for maps and will replace the currently used scale for templates and infoboxes.

5. Maps on commons will not be overridden but instead will have new files uploaded via bot since this was not discussed on Meta with the support of other Wiki communities. Some files can't be uploaded by a bot and have to be done manually.

6. Maps will be overridden on commons IF there is a discussion on Meta that has the support of sister wikis (these sister projects must be notified appropriately).

7. Timeline background will go back to its prior color and the new scheme will be adopted for timelines as well

Discussion

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please state below which provisions you support and/or oppose.

• Support 1; Neutral 5; Support 6; Support 7 provisions as proposer. Hopefully, this makes a solution that everyone can agree on so we can get back to making images and articles. Noah 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• @MarioProtIV, JavaHurricane, KingLucarius, LightandDark2000, DaneH20, SolarisPenguin, HurricaneEdgar, Akbermamps, Chlod, Drdpw, Jason Rees, United States Man, TropicalAnalystwx13, Jasper Deng, CycloneFootball71, Supportstorm, Mobius Gerig, and TornadoLGS: Pinging everyone who participated thus far in the above discussion for thoughts so we can avoid a repeat of last time. Noah 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• @ChessEric, Destroyeraa, PurpleLights, Nova Crystallis, CooperScience, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging some additional project people who may have an opinion on this subject. I would also like to be transparent and state that I collected some feedback on the scale off-wiki before proposing it here so colors could be finetuned and any issues I missed be corrected. Noah 23:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I partially support the implementation of provision 1. I'm unable to find a reason why we wouldn't be able to apply that color scheme on maps. If the problem comes down to contrast with land, the circle and line (denoting the track and position of the cyclone) should be enough to make the general track distinct with the land. I think something that's been overlooked a lot in all of the proposals so far is that color is not the sole object that conveys information.

  I weakly oppose provision 2, for the reason that the problem partly lies in our implementation, and should there be a fix it should be implemented in the existing extension and not a new one.

  I oppose provision 3 for the reason that it suggests the creation of a new extension, which is unrealistic. If the usage of EasyTimeline (i.e. the <timeline> tag) itself is what's causing problems, then a better solution would be to use an existing replacement rather than formulate a new one. I will note, having developed a MediaWiki extension before, that extension development is a feat, especially one that requires the use of graphics libraries. The suggestion that we'll be able to develop a replacement extension, have it approved by the entire English Misplaced Pages community, and security-checked by the WMF is far-fetched. The shortfalls likely do not come from EasyTimeline itself, but our usage of it.

  I automatically oppose provision 4 as it relies on the implementation of provisions 2 and 3.

  I oppose provision 5 as it takes the "easy way out" which will only lead us to even more headaches going forward. Starting a discussion on Meta would be more substantial. There's no concrete method of how we're supposed to reupload said images, namely how we'll deal with categorization, what the new filename format would be, etc. With a Meta discussion, we'd be able to gauge how many wikis wish to follow our color scheme, and we'd avoid the mass-reupload of images on Commons and sparking hundreds of unnecessary edits (renames of files, etc.) cross-wiki for a change that would be used by most wikis anyway. The Persian Misplaced Pages has already chosen to follow our newly-proposed (and controversial) color scheme, and since our entire Storm categories module set and its associated templates are not that hard to export to other wikis, it wouldn't be hard for other wikis to follow suit. I'd like to finally note that WikiProject Weather is in no way autonomous nor isolated from the entirety of the English Misplaced Pages, nor other-language wikis for that matter. Going with this proposal, and expecting other wikis to either follow or "cope" with the changes would be very selfish of us. Let's try to get other wikis on-board first, shall we?

  I'd also advise the proposer to notify Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Accessibility and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. I'd also advise to notify sister wikis, although if this proposal aims to strictly push provision 5 as part of its agenda, I assume that wouldn't be necessary (assuming my comments from above fall on deaf ears). Chlod (say hi!) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Forgot to mention why I supported the proposed color scheme in the first place. Put simply, this has the rather unique idea of modifying the lightness of colors for categories lower than the SSHWS Categories 1 to 5, and does not have the extremely rough transition from red to purple like our current (recently-applied) scale does (which is a common hate point). I'd suggest the timeline background color be bumped darker to alleviate any contrast issues with Category 1, though. Chlod (say hi!) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Clarified what I meant. I didn't mean to create an entirely new extension, but rather to formulate a replacement using the existing extension. I will also add a 6th provision for those in favor to starting a discussion on Meta and notifying sister wiki projects. Noah 21:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  "viable graphing extension replacement" definitely could have been worded better. In any case, I reiterate my point that our implementation might be what needs fixing. After all, what's the use of switching to a different graphing system if the same issues arise? And in addition, how can we prove that switching to a different way of formulating the timeline will fix the problem? Chlod (say hi!) 21:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Withdrew 2-4 since the original background is compatible with the new colors (including the previously incompatible TS color). I assume you support the new provision 6 per your statement above. I added provisions 6 and 7 above. Noah 22:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/Question This color scheme does not improve contrast as well as the current one, but I'm willing to get behind it since I'm kind of tired of wheeling around with these and, as I've said before, no color scheme will satisfy everyone. On provision 5, if some of the new files cannot be automatically given update counterparts, can a bot at least tag or categorize them, so we know which ones need to be done manually? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  @TornadoLGS: As far as I am aware, it would be possible. Noah 21:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support provision 1, per the reasons I gave above.

Support provision 5, as the one who proposed it. We can decide on categories and title format, but I don't think it will be a big issue.

Neutral on provision 6. It's a viable alternative, but I would want provision 5 to be on the table if we hold a discussion on Meta.

Support provision 7. If there are no color contrast issues, I see no reason to change the background color from the original. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support provision 1 – per TornadoLGS.

Neutral on 5 and 6. Whatever works for everyone else works for me.

Support provision 7 to keep the original background color.

United States Man (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Slight adjustments were made due to the maps showing an issue with C3 and C4 being a bit too close. No major change overall. Noah 00:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 7, Neutral on 5 & 6 I like the progression of colors in this latest proposal and the retention of a gray background. Drdpw (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Support the newest proposal, as well as most of the active provisions (1, 6, and 7). As I've stated multiple times on these discussions, we need colors that are more accessible to colorblind readers. And the 2008–2022 coloring system (the older one that we're all familiar with) had shades for C1, C2, and C3 that were too similar to each other even for some readers with normal color vision. This newest proposal resolves the accessibility issues while also being more similar to the older system, as is clearly more acceptable to our editors. The C1-C4 colors in this proposal are also easier to distinguish than the more familiar scale. As such, I believe that it is a fair compromise, and an excellent proposal. I support starting a discussion on Meta-Wiki and pinging every single Wikimedia site with its own version of WPTC (such as simple wiki, zh.wiki, es.wiki, etc.) to discuss the changes across all the various projects. It would be better if we can have all of the projects in sync, as this would also make it easier to maintain the track maps. In the event that the Meta-Wiki discussions are nowhere near wrapping up by the time we have a bot setup with the capability to redo the maps, I would consider implementing Provision 5, so we can already get started on uploading revised track maps. The discussions should not drag out for months or even years. Concerning the other changes, I think that all of the changes local to en.wiki should be implemented immediately, upon the closure of this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support provision 1, the colors provide sufficient contrast between each other (see image if you want to test).

Wait on provision 5, wait for consensus to be reached on Meta/other wikis. If they support the change, override. If they don't, make new files. The track maps can wait.

Support provision 6, see above

Support provision 7, map provides sufficient contrast. Akbermamps 02:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Partially Support provision 1, only thing that really stands out still is the transition from orange to maroon there. Still looks like a duller color than the prior category.NickWX28 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@NickWX28: It's not maroon, but rather rose red.   for rose red and   for maroon. It's not really duller, but maybe it is a factor of it being a darker color. It still contrasts against the map sufficiently; We had to make the colors different and darker (in some cases) in order to provide enough contrast between colors on the map. I believe this is about as close as we can get to the original scale while still fixing all the issues we needed to. Noah 11:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see the slight difference in shading there. To be fair though, i referred to it as maroon because it was just a darker red. My own eyes are terrible as well. Retinopathy does that sadly.NickWX28 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I am not in a position to assist productively in this discussion.JonRichfield (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support 1, 5, neutral 6, 7. As such I have no idea about what the discussion regarding the timeline is about, but I have to say that the new colours are much better than the ones approved above; the new colours cause no eye pain, for my part. JavaHurricane 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1, Neutral/Weak Support 5-6, Support 7 - These colors are much more friendlier then the previous scheme and are more closely related to the old colors. They satisfy much of the issues and don’t deviate far enough to confuse me as well. In regards to the maps, I support new maps, if they can’t be globalized then create separate files and have a bot replace them in the pages, if they can be via consensus on Meta, upload a new version of the current files Timeline looks great as well, so I support bringing the previous background back for that as well. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Provisions 1, 5 and 7. Oppose Provision 6 - I agree, that this proposal is significantly better, than the previous ones. The contrast of the colours, slowly change throughout the scale. Unlike, the original proposal, with Category 4 being coded red and Category 5 being coded purple, respectively. The contrast between those two colours were alot darker than the rest of the scale, in that proposal. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1&7, Neutral, leaning support on 5&6- I like the new color scheme presented here, though I prefer the previous color change with purple cat 5 colors, but I will fully support it if it helps all people who have eyesight troubles. for provision #7, if there were no issues with the previous contrast color, I don't see why we can't change it back to the original color. as for 5&6, I feel more discussion is needed here to see which option is best, however I do think that it only seems fair to have a discussion on meta to get everyone involved and notified of any major changes made for the maps. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Cat 4 and Cat 5 are much too close in this new one so I cannot support the new proposal.—Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Did a tweaking of the colors. Is this better? Noah 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This color scheme obviously satisfies everyone else and should stop the arguing. Why not support it? United States Man (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Jasper Deng and Cyclonebiskit did make a fair point about the C4 and C5 colors, which has hence been corrected. Noah 13:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Even better. If their issue has been corrected, they should be able to support it. United States Man (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The new revision still does not make them nearly as distinguishable as purple and therefore I remain opposed.—Jasper Deng (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh well. It apparently satisfies a vast majority here, but I guess you can't satisfy everyone. United States Man (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the currently accepted February 2022 revision. The proposed scale doesn’t improve on what was agreed upon and only adjusts the problem to a muddied C4/5 boundary. I’ve been absent for two months, but I’m post-supporting the Feb 2022 RfC results that have already been implemented and don’t believe further change is warranted as long as it continues to comply with WP:ACCESS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The reason why this was reopened was because most of the project despises the color scheme above so we are trying to achieve a balance between accessibility and aesthetics. Otherwise, the debate and ensuing chaos would never see an end. Noah 11:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This color scheme obviously satisfies everyone else and should stop the arguing. Why not support it? It obviously improves on the first one in that the color scheme satisfies both the old way and ACCESS. United States Man (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I remain opposed to this proposed scale tho. The color scheme doesn’t remedy the issue as well as the Feb 2022 version. Part of this whole issue stems from familiarity bias, we’ve been exposed to a particular color scheme for roughly 15 years. Altering it, even for the better, will inherently upset people as it is a departure from something familiar. I remain in support of the current Feb 2022 version. @Hurricane Noah: can you add the Feb 2022 version to the proposal table so everyone can easily compare the three versions? I believe this is creating some unclear discussion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What is unclear? This is a compromise to both sides. If you can't support that then you aren't really working toward a true solution. United States Man (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man: there’s no reason to be so hostile. I’m asking Noah for a broader comparison image while expressing what I don’t like about the proposed scale and my thoughts on it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit and @Hurricanehink I updated the table above to include all the colors from the old scale, the previously approved, and this new proposal. Noah 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see much improvement with my concerns on the updated colors. I still oppose these new colors. Other arguments haven't been substantiated outside "I don't like it" which isn't enough to overturn an RfC. There's no problem with a significant color shift, especially when it better highlights the difference in categories, while retaining aesthetic appeal, rather than a gradual shift that can be difficult to differentiate at a glance. I've yet to see any complaints from non-WP:Weather members regarding the new scale...there would be at least a handful of IPs commenting their gripes if it was that much of an issue. Regarding mapping issues, no example has been put forth to convey this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An issue may be that people simply do not know where to go to complain. I have seen numerous instances of complaints on twitter from non-WP weather people who view our site. See and as examples of external complaints. I'm sure people would be coming here if they knew where to go. Noah 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support 1,6, and 7- This new scheme is much better than the February revision. I will fully support this reason being it retains the look of the original, satisfies access concerns, and is aesthetically pleasing. As for the bot implementation, I oppose using one. I have the data for all storm that had metadata changes, includes RSMC data, and other custom settings to make sure tracks look proper. A bot would introduce errors. I can run through the most recent data 2000-2021 within a few months if people are patient. Supportstorm (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Eh. I kinda preferred the colors agreed back in February, under the heading Infobox & Template colors. The purple as Cat 5 stands out better than the rose red, and the gradation makes more sense. There isn't enough difference between Cat 4 and Cat 5. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How does jumping to an entirely different color for Cat 5 make more sense than a red graduation that satisfies ACCESS? United States Man (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We're already changing thousands of maps. I think it's easier to see the difference with purple as C5, so the gradations all stand out more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue with purple C5 as I see it IIRC from Noah is that the contrast against the map is (Blue Marble) hard to tell. We would probably have to change to a different map style entirely to satisfy ACCESS. He can clarify for me if needed. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The only real issue I see is purple tends to be a bit of an eyesore for people against the background of this map. I'm honestly not seeing any real differences in accessibility looking at the table comparison above. Noah 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Then I'm fine with the proposed changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Support- I support the 1, 5 & 7 options. I feel that they suit my eyes & are similar to the older colors but still help others who do inherently have this condition. Also if there is a bot that can redo the colors then I'm all for it. Flasty Jam (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, basically per Hurricanehink. Even with Noah's revision, the new colors don't sufficiently distinguish between Cat 4 and Cat 5. Purple for Cat 5 is distinct and consistent with many external weather sites. No compelling reason has been advanced to overturn the results of the February RfC. – Juliancolton |  21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Did you see the map I had posted under JD's comment above? It shows a decent contrast between the C4 and C5 colors. Im not sure why so many people are still insisting there isn't sufficient contrast. This was meant to be a peace offering/compromise to the other side so we could both get what we wanted and move on. Nothing can be enacted until no more objections are raised here against whatever scale we decide on. Noah 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why I noted that my concerns were in spite of that update. If multiple people are raising the same concern, then maybe there's really a problem beyond just belligerence. – Juliancolton |  23:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Juliancolton: Would you at least be willing to support either provision 5 or provision 6 which are independent of the color scheme proposed here? They deal with the handling of implementation regarding the map updates on COMMONS regardless of which scale ends up being decided upon here. Noah 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, provisions 5 and 6 are acceptable regardless of which color scheme is used. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (all provisions) – the proposed color scheme, despite satisfying accessibility guidelines, gives the appearance of being a divergent color scale centered at Category 1 for colorblind users. An intensity color scale should not be presented in that manner. The previously approved scale handles this issue better and offers the best differentiation between categories. —TheAustinMan 22:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  @TheAustinMan: I'm just curious, what exactly is the problem with a divergent scale? I looked at the page and it said to have extreme values at both ends. In this case PTC being the least intense category and C5 being the most intense. Also, we need a consensus either way on whether we implement a scale locally only or attempt to implement on a global level, regardless of which scale ends up being implemented. Noah 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Divergent scales give the appearance of a "neutral" position between the extremes, and in this case, that would oddly be the Category 1 rating, which would not make much sense given that there is no "neutral" intensity. We should also be seeking support of sister wikis to ensure presentation of storm intensities is uniform after reaching consensus here. I Support provision 6, and am neutral on provision 7. Oppose provisions 1 and 5. TheAustinMan 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose provision 1, Support provisions 5-6. I went back and forth on this for a while, hence why it's taken so long to comment. At the end of the day, I think the original colors that were decided upon by consensus should remain. The goal of that endeavour was to eliminate colors looking too similar. In the proposed version here, categories 3-4 are hard to differentiate. This problem does not exist for the colors already rolled out. And while I understand the concern about using recognized colors for different categories compared to the original version, this is something that users can adjust to again with time--something that wasn't given before rushing into yet another lengthy discussion here. If there's widespread and consistent criticism of the color scale by members of the public, then a new discussion can be started down the line. Everything else is just speculation. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see an issue with telling C3 and C4 apart on the proposed colors. We can only change it so much before it ends up failing ACCESS and one of the colorblind tests and thus becomes an untenable proposal since it doesn’t satisfy one side. Also, despite the claim of getting used to shifted colors, I find that hard to believe as we’ve already seen criticism about this (off-wiki as well), plus purple C5 is quite a bit of an eyesore against the ocean background (which we are most likely not changing). MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 01:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Cat 2-4 range has long been an issue with the original scale, which is why these discussions have been occurring for a decade. If you look at your table above, the proposed Cat 3 is darker than the original one, which puts it closer to the Cat 4 colors. This is not an issue in the accepted colors, since the old Cat 5 color/now Cat 4 color is clearly separable. I have no issue with the purple as is. I mentioned time in my post because we have to be cognizant that any change whatsoever, good or bad, will be criticized at the onset for moving past a color scale that has existed a decade. I'm more interested in complaints 3 months from now than I am right now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I do have a love for the original color scheme, though that is definitely due to it's use for more than 15 years, and I accept that there were accessibility issues that necessitated changes. I am neutral on either color scheme, though I think that we should decide soon (though with proper consideration), and accept the results moving forward. My only concern with the new changes is that the PTC/disturbance color is darker than the tropical depression/tropical storm color — this darkness is which I unconsciously associate with stronger storms, so that is a bit jarring for me. If I have to make a decision, I may want to keep the RfC colors. — Iunetalk 00:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Support with the newest proposed color scale, which I did not exactly know was the case until I found out on the Discord server. Nonetheless, it is better than whatever was put into place currently, and I seem to be in the rarer population of those who actually like it better than the old colors. I do see the reasons for changing the colors, and I believe the newest proposed ones are definitely a suitable compromise between the ones who wanted the old colors to stay, and the ones who felt the current ones fit the best. funnycomixking | Talk 01:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that funnycomixking (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Neutral provision 5, Support all other provisions — I am in support of the implementation of this color scheme. Not only does it accomplish the original goal of better complying with accessibility standards via being more colorblind-friendly, but it’s also a lot more visually appealing to those not affected by colorblindness, being relatively similar to the former-scheme. The progression also flows a lot more linearly. This scale is a suitable compromise overall and an improvement in a lot of areas over the previous one. As far as provision 5, my neutrality comes at a general lack of a strong opinion there but all other non-withdrawn provisions have my support. Lucarius ~ 02:06, March 24 2022 (UTC)

Important! 15 Supported and 5 Opposed, thus far. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@TropicalCyclone101: This isn't a vote. It's decided by strength of argument. Noah 14:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: My apologies. I'll keep that in mind. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the argument that purple does not contrast against the blue ocean background is sustainable:

• If anything, the preponderance of reddish hues makes the second (right-hand) map much less usable.
• Also, I should add that as per WP:DUE we could arguably have to use purple as it is used by the NWS for the EF scale (see here and any DAT tool), and (to a lesser extent) by website like Wunderground (e.g. here for the same storm) and CIMSS (e.g. for Dorian before the Bahamas). The arguments for the new colors are simply not sustainable, especially on policy and guideline grounds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing says that we have to use the same color scale as the NWS. None of the systems proposed here satisfy that anyway since they use green for EF1. United States Man (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with reliable sources is definitely a reason to use a similar scale to them. We can't use the exact same one, of course, since we have different display needs, but the consistency cannot hurt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not a fan of the purple color from the RFC, but I'm afraid that the proposed color scale tries to compress too many classifications within a single chroma band, which was the shortfall of the original scale. While the proposal does address WP:ACCESS concerns, it does not address the C1-C4 confusion, so I think some sort of purple hue will be needed for C4-C5. Titoxd 00:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The background on all of these maps could cause accessibility issues so I rather see us replace the base map first before changing the colors. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  That itself is a tedious process (and was discussed way earlier in this whole thing) so that’s kind of off the table for now. Plus copyright and stuff is different on some of the maps and that is a whole mess we’d not want to get bogged down in. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 04:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all changes since November 16. The map should be on the table first before any of the discussion should have happened. We are already bogged down so I see no reason why we couldn't start from step one. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: I could get behind that, if there is the possibility of accessibility issues on the map as well, they definitely need to be addressed along with the colors. Just to clarify, you're proposing to basically restart the discussion from the beginning and find/agree on a better map, and then find colors for the intensity scale and continue to work on from there? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - It may just be me, but I find it difficult to differentiate between the Category 4 and 5 colors in this proposal. They look very similar to me, and I need to zoom in to see the difference, and even then I can only barely see it. It's even worse when I have the blue light filter on. SolarisPenguin (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to note that this discussion has been brought up in the WPTC Discord server, and as such, some people commenting may have been notified of the discussion through there or asked to comment by another user off-wiki. For transparency, I am part of the WPTC Discord server and have also discussed the changes there, but I had knowledge of this discussion before it was brought up there. I will also not be making any comment as to my opinion for fairness’ sake; I am merely here to notify about the possibility of stealth canvassing. PurpleLights! 22:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Hink and JC. YE 23:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 7 "4 is red, 5 is purple?" was what I thought when looking at the recently approved one. This scale, on the other hand, follows the quiet blue-to-intense-red while still meeting WP:ACCESS guidelines. It seems like just the compromise WPWX needs. 🐔dat (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hybrid proposal

Color	Hex	H	S	V	Contrast
PT	#6699ff	220	60	100	AAA (7.56:1)
TD	#59c8ff	205	65	100	AAA (11.13:1)
TS	#4dffff	180	70	100	AAA (17.06:1)
C1	#ffffd9	60	15	100	AAA (20.55:1)
C2	#ffd98c	40	45	100	AAA (15.55:1)
C3	#ff9e59	25	65	100	AAA (10.28:1)
C4	#ff738a	350	55	100	AAA (8.07:1)
C5	#d580ff	280	50	100	AAA (8.36:1)

Since I mentioned above that I do think we need to have some sort of purple hue for at least some of the categories to remedy the lack of distinctiveness between the SSHWS Cat 1–Cat 4 colors, I would like to put forward the following color scale for consideration. I based it on the Munsell color system for the initial colors, and adjusted to maximize space between C1-C4 while ensuring that the colors maintain WCAG 2.0 AAA color contrast guidelines. Titoxd 03:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It stands up on the colorblindness charts but I think the C5 color could be a bit darker, like in the current color scheme. This is based on an intuitive progression from light to dark colors with increasing intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The lighter colors actually make the C4 (light red) and C3 (orange) colors harder to tell apart from a difference. I'd like to see those categories use a darker shade. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How are C3 and C4 here difficult to tell apart? They seem rather well-defined both for those who can see all colors on the visible spectrum and for those with the three types of colorblindness (the significant difference in lightness is more than enough to adequately tell them apart and the original proposal that was supported was actually worse in this respect). And I like the lightness, personally, since it makes the scale feel more natural and doesn't have the last one/two colors be jarringly darker than everything else. If you're gonna change the lightness significantly, it should be progressive through the entire scale, not just making the end darker. Master of Time (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Much of this rehashes the problems with the current new scale and only makes things lighter (as well as having the shifting color problem as well). --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 04:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support the hybrid proposal (in conjunction with provisions 5 and 6 from Noah in the above discussion). It fixes the issues I had with colors being too similar and makes the category transition feel more natural. A new color is necessary to create an adequate range of colors and purple is the best fit for it. I believe making the purple darker would cause issues blue marble background, as evidenced by the maps provided by Jasper. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose Oppose – This scale looks okay for the most part, but I'd like to see a darker red color for C4, similar to what we have for the current C4 color (the former C5 color).A darker shade would make it easier to see on the maps. And perhaps a slightly darker shade of orange for C3 as well. Additionally, the lighter colors does make it a bit harder to differentiate the C4 and C3 colors at a smaller resolution. Also, what color are we going to use for the new severe tropical storm color? Menthol green? I don't see this category addressed in this proposal. Also, I feel like we are going to run into the same opposition to those who opposed the coloring system currently in use. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to "oppose" now, in light of the issues identified by Akbermamps. Any viable coloring system has to work for both normal vision and colorblind readers, in templates, the track maps, and the Timeline chart. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The color scheme is a bit too light and I think it's hard to distinguish C1 and C2 colors on the map. Also, I'm not sure that introducing more color schemes is the most productive thing to do at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @TornadoLGS: As you are probably aware, XKCD is satirical in nature and in this case, the analogy does not follow. If anything, having colors be brighter is necessary for contrast against the dark blue map. This is more akin to the RfC process of IETF than what’s in that strip.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Jasper Deng: I am aware it is satirical, but I do think that it applies. The more proposed color schemes there are, the more camps there will be in this discussion, and the harder it will be to reach a consensus. An issue, I've found, with too many light colors, is that even if they are easy to distinguish in a chart, they are harder to distinguish from each other if they are all against a dark background, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a color scale. It seems to me that both the current color scheme and the second one under discussion, proposed by Noah, have sufficient contrast from the background. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly support this as having the best of both worlds and also being based on sound color science instead of hand-waving like “it looks ugly”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While pleasant and contrast-compliant, looking on color blindness simulators, the colors are either too close to each other or unintuitive. On the red-blind and green-blind simulations, the C1 and TS colors are basically undistinguishable, and on the blue-blind simulation, the C5 color is too close to the C3 color. It's confusing to see the scale getting redder and redder, then when it gets to C5, it suddenly gets lighter. I also want to note that changing the TS/TD color to be farther away from C1 will make the TD color too close to the C5 color for blue-blind people. With some fixes, this could work, but for now I'm opposing. Akbermamps 06:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• In light of these issues, I have no choice but to oppose this proposal. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• I examined the issues you mentioned using that site and for none of the colorblindness types do C1 and TS or C3 and C5 look similar. Master of Time (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• To clarify in case there is confusion, I'm inputting the track map provided above into the colorblindness simulator. They are distinguishable on a scale, but when on a map it's very hard to distinguish the difference. Akbermamps 07:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Provided we slightly modify the PTC color to contrast with the C5 shade (and for everything except PTC), I will support. I like this significantly more than the original proposal that was voted on on the basis that it seems more natural with fewer weird jumps in the colors and makes the scale less oversaturated while still looking good on the colorblindness metrics. Master of Time (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Tentatively support the use of varying hues to allow for clear distinctions in colors, a fairly uniform brightness, and the use of a bright color for cat 5. This is in contrast to the dark color "rose red" in the March 21st proposal which makes cat 4 the most prominent color on the dark blue track map background. I do think the one thing that perhaps hurts it is that it feels a bit too pastel/light, which could affect the color distinction somewhat. Would also like to see the colorblindness scale comparison, though given the similarity to the recently adopted color scale, it is likely quite sufficient in that respect. – atomic𓅊7732 07:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atomic7732: here is a color comparison chart. You can use to check the map proposed here if you would like. Noah 11:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose due to contrast issues between TS and C1 for two types of color blindness, issues between C3 and C5 for one type, and because the top of the scale looks almost the same as the bottom on color blindness simulations. These problems are not apparent on a color table, but they are clear when looking at the map. Noah 11:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is still difficult to tell TS from the original timeline background on this proposal, which is what the currently used scheme addressed. If we are looking at the new timeline background, the C1 would be too hard for normal vision and color blind vision. Noah 13:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose due to the fact the colors are too light and it doesn't fix the issues with the latest color issues. The problem was that many people haven't adjusted from the OG color scheme and are still going to have issues. Hell, how weird this one looks, it makes me want to go to the color scheme we have now. As for the color blind situation, due to its lightness, it would still be a problem per Noah so therefore I reject this. Flasty Jam (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are we arbitrarily deciding this scale is "too light"? The current one, if anything, is oversaturated and too dark. At least this one is rooted in color science. Master of Time (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue of a scale being too light and/or undersaturated is that it decreases contrast between the colors within it. Increasing saturation and scaling brightness makes the colors more distinguishable from one another, which is the reason for changing the color scale in the first place. On the map, this proposed color scheme doesn't offers little, if any, improvement over the original. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That last but is just objectively not true. Every color is decently discernible for all forms of colorblindness save the PTC and C5 colors, which not at all the case for the scale that has been in use for over 10 years. And yes, I did apply the colorblindness filters to the version on the map. Could it be slightly revised? Maybe. But I easily prefer it over the current scale or the original version that was voted on, save the PTC and C5 issue. Master of Time (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And I'll add that if undersaturation and darkness really isn't an issue, then we should be using this scale, which was created by an actual color scientist and is consistently perceptually uniform and usable for those who suffer from colorblindness. But aesthetics do in fact matter as well — nobody wants an unattractive scale and it is clear that this scale is too dark and undersaturated for people's liking. Master of Time (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I experimented a little with different screens. On my two computer monitors at least, I have trouble distinguishing the C1 and C2 colors on the map. They seem less distinct from each other on the map than in a chart. While distinguishing colors from the background is important, I still think this places too much priority on that over distinguishing the colors from each other. There has to be a correct balance. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that I wasn't even considering aesthetic arguments since that, I thought, would fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But I was under the impression that increasing saturation would make the colors more mutually distinguishable, which was the main goal of this discussion. Its value is more than simple aesthetics. For instance I made this scale by simply boosting the saturation from the link you gave. I'm not proposing this as the color scheme, but contrast among those colors is improved across the board. If I am missing something here, please let me know. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Colour for Storm Force

I don't care what colours are used per say, however, I feel that it is important to remind people that we need a colour for 50 - 65 knots as after all it is a category on every scale bar the SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Potential off-wiki canvassing

@TheresNoTime, Compassionate727, and Worm That Turned: Due to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closure mess involving off-wiki discussion and the ongoing Arbcom case that has resulted in the indefinite block of the main nominator here (in which the user said canvassing had gone on in this entire discussion on the AN/I board), should the results of this entire section be nullified and reverted to the system used prior to November 2021? I actually had no knowledge that these off-wiki discussions took place to this extent and feel that if this was discussed extensively off-wiki then it should be nullified. United States Man (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man: I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action would be right now. While it makes sense to revert to the old scale in light of the canvassing issue, that would be undoing the compliance with WP:ACCESS which isn't ideal. I think for now we should defer to ArbCom and see what their input on how to handle the RfC result is. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Something else that came to mind. I had already thought the implementation of the new colors was a bit hasty, since we didn't have a concrete plan for track maps aside from potentially automating the task. On that subject, I had been under the impression that Noah would be the main one who would make the bots, and his block derails that plan. Would this weigh at all on such a decision and can/should I mention this at the ArbCom discussion? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier (by Support) that he would do the bots thing. I probably would mention it but I’m not so sure. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

After thinking it over a bit, I believe it's best we leave things at the Feb 2022 RfC and revisit this discussion once the ArbCom case is settled. Many editors involved in the color discussion are involved in the case and we should respect the space for that to be handled. Once the dust settles, we should definitely have a renewed color discussion as we didn't reach a consensus on further changes. We can leave the maps at the legacy colors as there has been no consensus on how to move forward with that. I don't think it's a big deal that the map colors temporarily don't match the infoboxes as they always have a color key attached. Does that sound acceptable? As I'm involved in the color debate I cannot make this decision alone. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Both of the RfCs (including the November 2021 one) was also influenced by canvassing. As much as I hate to say it it probably is best to revert back to the original scale for now until this entire thing is finished. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather defer this matter to ArbCom and in the meantime maintain the status quo as default as one person being canvassed should not result in a single discussion being nullified IMO. YE 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Bill Read

This article on Bill Read, one of the previous director of the National Hurricane Center is ambiguously named. There is a also a famous Canadian indigenous sculptor named Bill Read, a footballer and others of the same name. I had to redirect many link to this article that were for those others and modify the Wikidata. Wouldn't it be better to rename the article "William L. Read", his proper name, in order to avoid this problem in the future?

Pierre cb (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: Guidance material discourages the use of middle names and initials in titles, except where the middle name or initial is part of the name by which the person is best known, such as Harry S. Truman. If the title for the article Bill Read is proving troublesome, I suggest the title “Bill Read (meteorologist)”. If you look at William Read (disambiguation) you will see what I mean. Dolphin (t) 23:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification

I have nominated Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification for deletion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brookings effect#Requested move 25 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk: Brookings effect#Requested move 25 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --KJ7RRV (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:A/R/C

There is an ArbCom case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord server for which this WikiProject might have been affected. You might be interested in giving statements regarding that case. MarioJump83! 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody know of some papers / sources?

I'm currently rewriting the altostratus cloud article, and have encountered multiple statements to this effect: ""It is widely considered that stratus, stratocumulus, altostratus, and cirrus clouds have the greatest impact on climate..." (Mavromatidis & Kallos, 2003). However, I can't seem to find any studies showing the gross warming and/or cooling effects of altostratus clouds. I was able to find significant sources on this topic when I wrote cirrus cloud. About the only thing I can find for altostratus clouds is Chen, Rossow, and Zhang's paper, but that gets extremely in-depth to the point that I'm hesitant to include its information since it might violate summary style.

Does anybody know of any sources for more gross statistics? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about removing the fatalities section on Weather of 2022

There is an ongoing discussion to remove the fatalities section from the Weather of 2022 article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox for Weather of 2022 and other such yearly articles

There should be some sort of infobox for the yearly weather articles. It would be nice if we had yearly weather deaths, with accompanying citations. That would be amazing to have yearly weather deaths and damage statistics by year for every country, and for every weather type. And then the image would be a gallery of a few images. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think we should find a fairly regular / uniform source for this kind of information, though, since trying to sum them up ourselves could end up with radically-varying totals. Does the WMO or some other organization keep track of these statistics? Master of Time (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes#Requested move 5 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes#Requested move 5 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper 06:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Color issue for people who are monochromatic color blind

I know that you guys debated the color change but there's a new issue, the Cat 4/EF4 and Cat 5/EF5 colors (When converted to simulate Monochromatic Blindness) appear as the same shade of gray. I know this because i used a program that changes color to black and white using the new scale color scheme and Colors 4 and 5 are the exact shade of gray. Hope this helps with your finalizing your color choice. RaydenAG (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There isn't really much we can do about monochromatic blindness for the colors without redoing the entire scale, which is highly unlikely, given the immense difficulty in even reaching a consensus on this project for changing the colors. The only way that would even become a viable option is if we replaced the Blue Marble background currently used in the track map images, and IMO, such a change is much less likely to gain consensus than any of the color changes. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring old colors for now until the end of ArbCom

Given the dispute that the colors are involved in at ArbCom with regards to canvassing, I think its best to restore the old colors to the template until the ArbCom case is closed, which won’t happen for another month it seems. Plus, the entire debate was tainted by canvassing as admitted there so I think it’s more harmful to leave it the way it is now with it not matching the maps. I can’t edit it now since it’s fully-template protected. The info boxes not matching the maps is probably the most serious case of this since newcomers within the next few weeks will be confused (and the key does not help since that only appears on individual storm pages). Once the case closes, whatever comes out of it, we can restart the discussion anew. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 12:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that @Chlod: reverted an attempt to restore the old colours yesterday and put a request for page protection in and the comments above, I personally feel that it is better that we maintain the status quo until the case is over even if it is another month or so. Yes you may not like it and people maybe confused by the new scale, but I do feel that those concerns are superseeded by WP:ACCESS.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concerns with WP:ACCESS but I don’t think it supersedes the other concerns of misleading information, especially given the fact, as stated above, that multiple people have raised the question. It’s better to create consistency instead of misleading color schemes for the rest of the ArbCom process, even if some think the opposite is true. I also don’t think WP:IDLI applies here as this is a genuine concern for our readers during this process (since the maps are significantly different from the infoboxes at the moment) and it is far more a better idea to restore consistency between them for the time being. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, we should keep the changes in place, pending the outcome of the ArbCom case and the RfC here. It is unlikely that the entire RfC will be overturned, and honestly, in the unlikely event that it is overturned, we will literally have to go through the entire discussion again, and you will have to rehash the entire fight with all of the participants, which will set tempers off again and result in more bad blood. Calling for such is counterproductive. As for the template protection, I think that was the best course of action. People need to stop screwing around with the colors, given that color template is highly-visible. We definitely should not have another version of the mid-April color wars at the Russian invasion map, which was extremely immature and a disgrace (the map is viewed by millions of people each day). Jason Rees is right in saying that WP:ACCESS applies here. And this really is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, which isn't even a valid reason for overturning the changes. It is not really our problem that so many people don't like change. And either way, there's going to be temporary confusion anyway with whatever new color scheme is implemented, so I see literally zero point in reverting. It's going to be inconsistent for at least a few months anyway, as we can't redo all of the track maps all at once, even if the RfC were immediately concluded. People can get used to the changes, and they will. Also, the correct procedure for RfCs is to keep the status quo pending the outcome of the discussion, not revert back and forth to whatever was the previous version. The fact that you're still suggesting this, and the fact that someone tried to reinstate the old colors in spite of the RfC, convinces me that Chlod was right in requesting the template protection. We should not entertain or even allow the possibility of further color-warring. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that most of the articles and track maps technically are not consistent, since the track maps use data from the JTWC primarily rather than the RSMC's.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Again I really don’t think WP:IDLI applies here given this is a genuine problem for the entire wiki. The problem is that the color scale is different enough especially at the high end to create confusion for a lot of new readers ESPECIALLY for C4 and C5 compared to the maps and that’s not what Misplaced Pages wants to do right? The result of the ArbCom will in some way likely result in some or a lot of rollback, and given the original November 2021 and subsequent February 2022 RfCs were tainted heavily with off-wiki canvassing, it is in the best option and for the project in general to at least restore the legacy colors so as to not create confusion and then we can work out whatever comes out of the ArbCom result. I’d argue even a bit that WP:CCC applies here given the rigidity. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The new colors were established by consensus. If the impacts of canvassing were great enough to warrant nullifying that consensus, then that is a decision for ArbCom to make, not us. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Back when MarioProtIV first sparked an edit war on Module:Storm categories/categories, I thought of having the related pages template-protected but decided against it since modules fail to save if there's a syntax error. But considering the template does not have this same protection (after Modokai's edit yesterday that likely broke all usages of Beaufort, PAGASA, RSI, WSSI, and other scales that were added in the module), and knowing that an extended-confirmed user can add in a template error that breaks all cyclone pages, I decided to request protection given that there are +4,800 pages that will be affected if that happens. I really don't mind which scale is in use; the protection (and revert, since the template was reverted to a non-module version) was part of my duty as the primary maintainer of that module. Chlod (say hi!) 23:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm maintaining the same position I had when the ArbCom case arose, keep the Feb 2022 RfC results as it meets ACCESS which is the primary concern. Another discussion will begin once the ArbCom case is settled and they, hopefully, provide some input on these discussions and how we proceed and how to balance canvassed opinions. Whether or not people like the colors does not override ACCESS requirements. WP:CCC does not apply here as the root of this renewed debate is a canvassed shift in consensus after a closed discussion. The canvassing is most-evident in the March 2022 RfC, not the other discussions, as there was a sudden increase in dissenting opinions over the accepted RfC results. Why would one think the same canvassing applied to the others when the results were the exact opposite of the canvassed goals? Reverting to the original feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT as L&D mentioned. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My point was that this is only a temporary change until the case is finished and we come back to discussion. I’ve already repeatedly said I don’t think WP:IDLI applies here as this discrepancy is a genuine concern for newcomers too within the next month. Plus, the current maps and TCR adjustments are still using the old colors for consistency and I think temporarily returning to the old colors fixes this disconnect. I stated numerous times we can come back to this once the ArbCom case closes and eventually come to a new proposal and begin adding it to the tracks, but doing this quick fix for a while can at least not confuse new readers who might not understand the intensity on the track vs the infobox. Regarding the RfC, the first RfC in November 2021 was canvassed almost as much as the March case was, which in turn undermines the Feb 2022 case since it was essentially a revival and given the proposal in the Feb 2022 case was IIRC a canvassed one since numerous discussion happened off-wiki about it in November 2021. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has supported the color change, I do agree with Mario that the template colors not matching the map colors is a problem and is likely to cause confusion. Honestly, I had assumed that we wouldn't go through with actually changing the colors until we were ready to change the maps, too. Doing so before we had bots ready and whatnot was rather hasty, in my opinion. Admittedly, I felt some implicit pressure not to bring this up, which I alluded to at the ArbCom request. We shouldn't overturn the color change on the grounds of canvassing because that decisionis up to the Arbitration Committee, and they may decided that WP:ACCESS concerns override concerns of canvassing in this instance. Similarly, while I might otherwise support reverting until we are ready address the maps, because ArbCom might overturn any decision made here, I say our best option is to wait. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see with waiting another month is that opens the doors for confusion as you said. I know the ArbCom will decide the outcome but you also need to consider how this will affect new readers in that time period. I wouldn’t want Misplaced Pages advertising misleading colors for TC intensity between maps and templates as I would not be able to tell which was which. This discrepancy so to speak would prevent any adjustment IMO since the entire thing is in limbo bc of the canvassing issue. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The discrepancy is not much of an issue. The maps still have keys with the old color scheme. In terms of being able to understand them, nothing has changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a big issue because as I’ve said, incoming readers will likely get confused and I honestly don’t think many check the key that is in the image (I know I don’t). The main issue here with the discrepancy is the big difference in C4/5, which can obviously confuse people (and not fixing this doesn’t lead to people adjusting as some might think). MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 20:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If readers are confused, they can check the key that is specifically for eliminating confusion. It's not like new visitors to these pages have embedded knowledge of the color scheme either. The color key objectively provides the answer. This argument doesn't hold much weight. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Bold titles in article leads for events without formal names

I've noticed that many of the storm articles we have repeat the article title in bold in the lead. Most of these titles are descriptive rather than actual names for the events, especially those that follow the format (e.g. Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017. Reiterating descriptive titles like this is not supported by guidelines per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. I've mostly seen this in tornado outbreak articles, since I don't often edit non-tropical weather articles outside of those, but it is present in other articles. I'm suggesting the removal of bold titles from articles like this. However, I figured I'd bring it up for discussion here first, since WP:BOLDly making changes en masse often doesn't go over well. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support – I have been trying to make these changes here and there for a while. I fully support making the change to every article to follow MOS. United States Man (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as this is pretty much superseded by MOS:BOLDLEAD which says it can be there if accommodated in a natural way, which can be an easy fix. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Restructuring the lead sentence to accommodate the bolded title is not natural, so MOS:BOLDTITLE does not apply there. United States Man (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Question - I know that its good form to do so but do we have to mention the title in the lead? After all sometimes it is better not to.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It seems unnatural to restate the article title in the first sentence. The reader already knows the title before having to read it again. Apparently it is also against MOS, hence the RfC below. United States Man (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support for any event without a widely accepted name. The article titles we give for the vast majority of outbreaks are just the dates since there is no naming scheme available, giving bold wording in the lead lends to that being an actual title. LGS's and USM's rationales are sound. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - while as MarioProtIV observes, the MOS has a somewhat awkwardly phrased suggestion that we allow the article title to be bolded if it can be accomplished naturally, clearly in many cases this is not the bolded phrases are awkward and per the reasoning in WP:SBE, I'd prefer that we only bold where there is widespread use of the bolded phrase. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; it should be done on a case-by-case basis. There really is no requirement to use or not to use bolded titles in the leads of articles without a formal name. As such, I oppose enforcing a strict set of standards here when instead, we should be looking at each article on a case-by-case basis. Some of them, such as the list articles, shouldn't have their names bolded in the lead. But others can have the title accommodated and bolded in the lead, and I think that in some of those articles, this arrangement would be more appropriate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: Bolding article titles in lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Misplaced Pages style and naming Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

An ongoing discussion as to whether bolding the descriptive article title of tornado outbreaks and winter storms is compliant with MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE requires comment from others. As it stands now, tornado outbreak articles typically have the event type followed by the date while and winter storm articles have the date preceding the event type: Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017, Tornado outbreak of April 4–7, 2022, January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm, or January 2022 North American blizzard.

Per WP:SBE, bolding these titles in the opening line "gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage."

Per MOS:BOLDTITLE,

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

These titles are descriptive and not formal names.

Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way.

These titles require the whole sentence to be written around them, such as The January 2022 North American blizzard was a powerful and disruptive blizzard that impacted the.... This would also fail MOS:BOLDTITLE.

Input from others is requested. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

An easy fix can be done by stating “The January 2022 North American blizzard caused widespread and disruptive impacts to the Atlantic coast of North America from Delaware to Nova Scotia with as much as 2.5 feet (30 in) of snowfall, blizzard conditions and coastal flooding at the end of January 2022.” I do not see how that fails MOS:BOLDTITLE. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This implies that was an official name given to the event when it's merely a descriptor in lieu of an actual title. There's no reason to force bold text when the same information can be conveyed naturally and without undue weight. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The sample at MOS:BOLDTITLE refers to the United States presidential line of succession blurb, which is able to use it in a natural way. This can be easily done with these pages too, given some are from a single low pressure area (and thus should follow what tropical cyclones use), and thus doesn’t fail that MOS. The only other option is to use TWC names which have some more recognition (particularly the high impact and most notable ones) but that’s a whole nother can of worms that shouldn’t be opened. Don’t really see how undue weight is given since it states what it did. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 00:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The only other option is to use TWC names... this is only the case if you try to force using bold text in the lead sentence. There's nothing wrong with the current method being used, it's clear, conveys the event, and isn't awkwardly dancing around to avoid repetition. What you're trying here is more of a stylistic choice that you want others to use. USM is correct citing WP:SBE, severe weather events are exactly what that guideline covers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The presidential line of succession is well-recognized contingency such that effectively has a name. This is not the case with the date-based title format for storm articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to say looking at two articles Special:Permalink/1082390258 & Special:Permalink/1082389857. MOS says: include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way. The second link I gave incudes it, whereas the first link I gave is a natural lead-in to the topic and doesnt need to be changed. See WP:SBE this practice is not mandatory and should be followed only where it lends natural structure (brackets added by me); Basically my not-vote is WP:AINT. Both seem fine, and If there are specific articles with lead issues, fix those, otherwise spend your energy on editing other things. WP:AINT: don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it (that part about anybody else's is NOT a subtle dig at creating an RFC) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree; the guidelines currently allow for avoiding long awkward bold titles in the article opening. So, technically, no change is needed. But if editors are commonly not taking advantage of this allowance, and are insisting on long and descriptive bold titles in the opening as if they were the common name of the subject, some thought can be given to strengthening the guidelines, or maybe just making an essay that other's can readily link when fixing this; it depends on how common this problem is. If the effort to improve the guidelines is less than the effort to correct the title use, then it should be done. --A D Monroe III 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with these opinions. This really shouldn't be a big deal at all, as WP:MOS doesn't mandate us to go one way or the other in this grey area. I think we should approach these articles on a case-by-case basis. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Project-Class Weather pages
• NA-importance Weather pages
• WikiProject Weather articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment