Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hurricane Noah (talk | contribs)
29,303 edits
Line 1,431: Line 1,431:


====Alternate proposal for maps====
====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 Wikipedia. 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 guildelines on accessibility might differ from the ones here. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' having the bots create separate images for the new tracks rather than overriding existing ones. [[User:Hurricane Noah|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200"><b>Noah</b></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<span style="color:#ff0000"><b>Talk</b></span>]]</sup> 11:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


== [[Bill Read]] ==
== [[Bill Read]] ==

Revision as of 11:59, 20 March 2022


Space weather task force

Bumping thread for 180 days days. NoahTalk 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. NoahTalk 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: What thoughts would you have on this? NoahTalk 02:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
@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. NoahTalk 00:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

    • @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)[reply]
    • 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. NoahTalk 20:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Organization

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. NoahTalk 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed color changes

Color comparison table

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
North Indian Ocean, Southwest Indian Ocean, Australia/South Pacific
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
DD/TD/TL
CS/MTS/C1
SCS/STS/C2
VSCS/TC/C3
ESCS/ITC/C4
SuCS/VITC/C5
Tooltips have been added for categories for non-WPWX members.

Track map comparison

Color blindness simulations
Protanopia (red-blind)
Deuteranopia (green-blind)
Tritanopia (blue-blind)

Discussion

No consensus for any changes. Please see the newer, ongoing discussion below for the later RfC on the new color system proposal. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) (Non-administrator closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support As proposer. NoahTalk 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and as the creator of the above comparison maps. Chlod (say hi!) 03:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Comment – I would like to know the impact on colour-blind people first. 🐱💬 05:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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  Bawk to me! 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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. NoahTalk 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #A751EF at 16:42, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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. NoahTalk 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #D948D9 at 23:51, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    It's also worth noting: ACCESS is a guideline. "Ugly" is not. Chlod (say hi!) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Are you another user or something? This account has a total of six edits on Wikipedia and frankly the participation here doesn't make too much sense. United States Man (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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. NoahTalk 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 (talk/contribs) 04:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I love when I get so-called “policy” thrown at me. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Wikipedia:Be bold are Wikipedia guidelines, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is a globally-agreed and recognized reference for accessibility, and foundation:Resolution:Nondiscrimination is a WMF Board of Trustees resolution. They have page notices at the top to clearly illustrate these, but perhaps you missed that. Chlod (say hi!) 06:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I never actually mentioned this being a policy-based change, but rather a guideline-based one. Perhaps you also misread my message? Chlod (say hi!) 06:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you act in such a manner as you are now, it really makes you look bad. United States Man (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to point out possible oversights, since I feel like you're missing the point of the proposal, and that's really the last thing that I would want to happen since you wouldn't be able to make an informed decision. Chlod (say hi!) 06:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not missing anything. I’ve been here for 10 years. You, not even 2 yet. I’ve seen this same discussion before and I didn’t support it then and still don’t now. That’s my opinion on it. I don’t believe the purple is a good idea, and I don’t think using some of those other funky colors will actually make anything better and will probably make it worse. United States Man (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess there's not much I can do if it doesn't float your boat. Still was worth a shot. Chlod (say hi!) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was only pointing out that I’ve been here long enough to have seen this before and know that I don’t support it. It has nothing to do with me being here longer, but go ahead and make another smart comment. United States Man (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia-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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AC's Idea

ALL the colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Potential Tropical Cyclone or Disturbance
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Severe Tropical Storm
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Extratropical

LGS's color scheme

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Redux: New RfC (February 2022)

The proposal in this RFC has been approved by a general consensus of those editors who participated in this discussion. The timetable for enacting changes following the closure of this RfC has yet to be determined and will warrant further discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. NoahTalk 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Potential Tropical Cyclone or Disturbance
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Severe Tropical Storm
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5

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. NoahTalk 23:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard vision

Protanopic (red blind)

Deuteranopic (green blind)

Tritanopic (blue blind)

Feedback on the proposed scheme

Normal feedback stage closed. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. NoahTalk 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. NoahTalk 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyways, the proposal parts for disturbance/PTC and ET are just for infoboxes since there are differences between colors there. NoahTalk 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. NoahTalk 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Found a solution to both problems and will be adding it in shortly. NoahTalk 02:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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? NoahTalk 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. NoahTalk 03:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing per WP:SNOW: consensus exists to remove links from the colored region of weather infoboxes and templates. NoahTalk 21:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • @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. NoahTalk 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. NoahTalk 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal discussion (RfC)

Please leave comments related to the RfC here. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support per above. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Tom94022 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the proposed colors again? 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This proposal leaves out the bad part of the earlier proposal and keeps the good. 🐔dat (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.
There is consensus to implement the proposed changes to the various colour schemes. No substantive opposition was put forward. firefly ( t · c ) 18:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. NoahTalk 15:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed colors

SSHWS colors

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

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Potential Tropical Cyclone or Disturbance
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Severe Tropical Storm
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Enhanced Fujita scale (for tornadoes)

In the spirit of keeping the scales consistent across Wikipedia, 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.

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
EF0
EF1
EF2
EF3
EF4
EF5
Western Pacific (JMA)
Proposed colors (International Scale)
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm
Severe Tropical Storm
Typhoon
Southern Hemisphere
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Disturbance
TD/TL
F1/A1/MTS
F2/A2/STS
F3/A3/TC
F4/A4/ITC
F5/A5/VITC
North Indian Ocean
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Land Depression/Depression
Deep Depression
Cyclonic Storm
Severe Cyclonic Storm
Very Severe Cyclonic Storm
Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm
Super Cyclonic Storm
North American winter storms (RSI scale)
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic
C P C P C P C P
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5

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.

Images comparing infobox and timeline status colors
Blue Blindness


Green Blindness


Red Blindness


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.

  • @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. NoahTalk 12:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of proposed change
Images of proposed change
Regular vision

Red blind

Green blind

Green blind

Current timelines
Images of current timelines
Blue Blindness

Green Blindness

Red Blindness

Discussion

  • @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. NoahTalk 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. NoahTalk 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 [4]. Pinging @Supportstorm: since they did both of these maps. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. NoahTalk 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talk/contribs) 03:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. NoahTalk 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 (talk/contribs) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. NoahTalk 03:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 (talk/contribs) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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. NoahTalk 10:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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 (talk/contribs) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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 (talk/contribs) 05:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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. NoahTalk 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 (talk/contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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. NoahTalk 15:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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 (talk/contribs) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. NoahTalk 10:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @Drdpw I removed hyperlinks from info boxes for scales per consensus above as it doesn’t comply with any scale we have had. NoahTalk 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 (talk/contribs) 18:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk/contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
While this is similar to the color scale I proposed, [5] was my actual proposal. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out the proposals here (including one off-wiki) and the colors are still too close to each other. (solar's proposal: [6], [7]), (mario's proposal: [8], [9]), (off-wiki proposal: [10]). 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)[reply]
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 (talk/contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tornado outbreak of mid-October 2007#Requested move 20 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tornado outbreak of mid-October 2007#Requested move 20 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather&oldid=1078205422"