Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Colour

After reading through the discussion again, I find there to be a general consensus for Dirtlawyer1's proposal. Specifically:
  1. All television season articles should use colour contrast ratios that satisfy WCAG 2.0 AAA.
  2. We should leave 30 days from now for editors of season articles using invalid colours to choose a valid colour combination.
  3. We should leave a message on the talk pages of all the articles affected notifying the editors there of our decision.
  4. After the 30 days is up, we should remove support for invalid colours from this template. There are a few different ways we could do this, so the exact technical steps to take may require more discussion. (We should also consider removing support for invalid colours from other related templates (e.g. {{episode table}}) after this date, assuming that editors of those templates agree.)
See the section #Notification message below for discussion of what the notification message should look like. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

@Alakzi: How exactly do colours cause accessibility issues? Alex|The|Whovian 08:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COLOR and my contrib history. Alakzi (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You are also being reverted by another experienced editor - your reason is poor, please expand upon it. Alex|The|Whovian 08:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither WP:COLOR or MOS:ACCESS prevent use of colour in infoboxes so arbitrarily removing the parameter from the infoboxes is disruptive at best. The solution is to fix the colours in articles where inappropriate colours are used, not to delete the parameters entirely. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Editors must make sure that whatever color they choose, first and foremost, has the AAA cert so that it does not cause accessibility issues. Second, it's relevant to the show (e.g., Wouldn't make Arrow have a pink banner).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Arrow is an example of how editors collaborated in a discussion to ensure that we had a suitably compliant colour scheme. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Like this. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that such an issue isn't occurring here, and certainly doesn't render the removal of variables. Alex|The|Whovian 16:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That's the exact issue occurring in many articles that use this template; I simply exaggerated the effect so that it would affect everyone, not just people with colour-blindness or some other visual impairment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Opened a few more pages at random - nearly all of Thomas & Friends (series 1) to Thomas & Friends (series 18) fall short of WCAG AAA. I am tempted to sample about a third of all transclusions, just to see what the exact extent of the damage is. Alakzi (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We have widespread problems with virtually all aspects of TV programs aimed at young audiences. Young editors, most of whom are anonymous or newly registered treat Wikipedia as a fan site, rather than an encyclopaedia, and simply don't bother to read the MOS or infobox instructions. Look at the column heading in the episode tables of the articles that you've linked to, they use "#" instead of "No.", contrary to MOS:HASH. Even Thomas & Friends (series 19) had a problem with |next_series=–. At least they got the format for season_name correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, of the first 221 I've sampled, only 82 colour combinations were conformant. There is an issue here that needs to be addressed. Alakzi (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television had colors originally and that option was removed with reason being (to the best of my memory) that info template colors are more a project wide issue, not a individual show issue and should be consistent for a given infobox type across the project. We should pick a color scheme for the season template, no reason I can see, not to match the colors used in television template - pick good accessible ones. The color issue still remains in table headers which are non-conformant. We still need a solution to that issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We could just use the default colours but removing the parameter is likely to result in a backlash. I still have to periodically depopulate Category:Television articles that use colour in the infobox 11 months after the parameter was removed. Some editors have even edit-warred over it. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe permit the escape of Template:Infobox television/colour for those shows that insist and make them justify the colors they choose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We could do the following: reject any colour combination which is violating; and track all articles with violating colour combinations in a maintenance category. "Good" infoboxes will remain unaffected, while "bad" infoboxes will revert to the default background, pending a fix. Alakzi (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We should also give immediate feedback to the editor if they choose wrong when adding or making changes. An edit filter might be able to accomplish that. Also, a question: Is it possible that for any background color that can be chosen there will be a foreground color that is conformant? When I see hard to read stuff, I just use either black or white depending on what I can read - is something like that sufficient? Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've now implemented this in the sandbox; see the final testcase in Template:Infobox television season/testcases. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Template now updated. The old version is in the sandbox, for comparison. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
MSGJ has given direction below that Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus. Alakzi has not made a request and there is no discussion on the changes so there is no consensus as yet so your change should not have been made. In any case, your close enough to this issue that you can be considered to be involved, so you should not have edited. As it stands, the changes create more confusion than they solve problems, as editors are left wondering why some articles have colour in the infobox and others don't. This is no indication to editors as to why this is the case. That needs to be resolved before the changes are made. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to address the valid concerns of Geraldo and AussieLegend with regard to user feedback with Special:Diff/672130455. The template will now display the following message in preview mode only: This template enforces compliance with WCAG G17; if the background colour for headers does not provide adequate contrast, it will be discarded. For details, please see Wikipedia:Colour contrast and the template documentation. This message is only shown in preview. Therefore, the template will now: (a) discard violating colour combinations; (b) place violating articles in a maintenance category; and (c) provide editors with guidance. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Alakzi (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC) {{Infobox television season/sandbox2 | season_name = Test (season 1) | bgcolor = #558899 | italic_title = no }}

Test (season 1)
Before we get to that, I just noticed something that needs more immediate resolution as we're not likely to build consensus immediately. To the right are two examples. The first uses the infobox code prior to this edit. The second uses the current code. I find the first infobox title much easier to read than the second and I have good eyesight. Perhaps we need the template reverted back to before the edit-warring started so that at least some people are able to read the infobox titles. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Odd as it may seem, the second example does technically provide better contrast (3.9121412941619 vs. 5.3679042807934). They both fall short of the 7.0 minimum. Therefore, if we're to deploy the sandbox version, it will no longer be an issue. Alakzi (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
So, if I've read this correctly, it seems that we are all in agreement that we should do something about the transclusions of this template that use colours that violate WP:COLOR, but that we are disagreeing about whether a fix should be made in the template itself, or in the individual articles that use it. As a first step, how about enabling the tracking category Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination to see what the scale of the problem is? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't imagine anybody would object to that. Alakzi (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As an outside observer to this discussion, a tracking category seems like a good idea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Info is always good to have so no objection to tracking this. The above examples show a problem with the algorithm though as it is obvious that the chosen black text on that background is less readable then the white text. I suggest it is because LCD displays normally in use have a hard time going to actual pure black while the white is the page background color. I would like to see that refined or explained a bit. Suggest adding tracking to a version before the last edit so we have pure info to analyze. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Good call on the LCD issue. I keep a Philips 17" CRT monitor on hand and just plugged it into my media PC to see the difference, which is quite significant. Both infoboxes are easy to read on the CRT while the LCDs are horrible by comparison. That's what we get for having analogue eyes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A tracking cat is a good idea and I appreciate Mr. Stradivarius' involvement. As I said at User talk:MSGJ#Infobox television season, ever since we did some work to {{Episode list}} in 2012 as the result of MOS:ACCESS issues raised at a featured list discussion, I've been working towards making our episode lists more MOS:ACCESS compliant but there is resistance from editors who simply don't understand the need. Some editors will edit-war over things like the inclusion of table captions and row and column scopes, and I suspect that more will go absolutely nuts over removing colour. I tried to explain to Alakzi that the general consensus in the TV project is that when DVD artwork is available we choose an infobox and episode list colour that matches the artwork. The problem with this is that most of the colours are likely to be non-compliant and I suspect that a tracking cat will show that the issue is very widespread. I really don't think that Alakzi's solution is a good one, only because I can't see most TV editors spending the time to find a colour that is compliant, and what we're going to end up with is a lot of articles with infoboxes that have the same colours as the episode tables but we're also going to end up with a lot that have different colours. That's going to make season articles look messy. With the input here of editors both involved and uninvolved in the TV project, we may be able to make a good argument that results in the best outcome with the least amount of upset to TV article editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
And I've tried to explain to you repeatedly that there is no equivalence between the TV article editors' colour preferences and accessibility. Accessibility must be addressed now. Whatever happens with the colour scheme of TV series season articles can be discussed at length between people who care about such trivialities. How can this be so difficult to understand? Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules that have to be implemented at all costs. We still rely on consensus. If we implement an unpopular solution the people will revolt. It may well be that the best solution is to remove colour completely and just use the defaults and if we have evidence that the problem is widespread and can't be fixed any other way and that the problem has been examined thoroughly then the revolt may be put off. The reason that certain TV programs still use colour in {{Infobox television}} is that revolts work. You need to start looking at the whole picture, not just one small aspect of it. The "fix" that you've already implemented as the result of not looking at the whole picture has now made it harder for everyone to read infobox titles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You appear to think that everybody's opinion is worth the same. It isn't. The people who'd revolt when being presented with the fact that they've been compromising the website's accessibility should not be editing an encyclopaedia in the first place. The "fix" that you've already implemented as the result of not looking at the whole picture ... Were you trying your hand at irony? We know my scare-quoted fix to have been detrimental in one instance; it has improved hundreds of other articles. It is also as much as I could do because of your opposition. Perhaps you should begin by taking responsibility for your actions. Alakzi (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is still part of the manual of style, not Wikipedia policy that must be adhered to, as such it can and must be balanced with other style guidelines including those portions related to TV series. There is no question of the ends that we all desire, we are still in discussion for the least disruptive means. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a guideline; and that means "a set of best practices that are supported by the consensus of Wikipedia editors. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense. Occasional exceptions may apply." Making something less accessible than it would otherwise be due to personal arbitrary aesthetic preferences is not "common sense" and is not a sound reason for an exception to wider consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Postscript: we're also bound by The WMF's Non discrimination policy: "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies... The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users... on the basis of... disability". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is a standard legal non-discrimination statement that is balanced by the general also legal pragmatics of "reasonable accommodation" for disabilities. Most of what we are trying to do for accessibility is somewhat redundant with what is provided by all the underlying operating systems that host wiki site readers. We are doing it because it is the right thing to do to supplement all the other means to that end provided by other links in the chain from us to the reader. This is not an emergency that needs immediate actions, we have time to find a solution that balances with other wiki goals. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No: it's an explicit statement that we must not discriminate, as we currently do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
As much as we discriminate against blind people by not providing descriptive audio for all our articles? Everything is balanced with reasonable accommodation. Nobody with a disability is being unreasonably discriminated against here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No, this is nothing like "providing descriptive audio". Nothing in WCAG suggests that we should do so. Using unnecessarily inaccessible colour combinations is unreasonable discrimination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone summarize what happened with the fgcolour parameter? Is it automated now? I admittedly haven't been following this discussion/edit war here (a WP:TV notification would have been nice). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fgcolour is now automated, although that is causing readability issues in some articles, likely because of the inability of LCD monitors to go to true black or white. As for the notification, I did leave a note at WT:TV about the edit-war that started this. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You did. Totally skimmed it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't miss much. Just AussieLegend canvassing. Again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you're always very quick to claim someone is canvassing, even when they aren't, usually when a discussion is not going your way and you're pretty much always proven to be wrong. Clearly the note at WT:TV was warranted, as Wikipedical's question demonstrates and there was nothing to canvass at that point, so you're wrong yet again. Please stop trying to point-score against other editors and stick to the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I've replied to your near-identical post elsewhere on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a reference to your LCD monitors in WAG. Which section is it in? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Due to recent edit warring, I've increased the protection of this template. Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've increased the protection to full protection. This will remove the temptation for editors involved to edit the template before a consensus forms, and is also the level that should really have been used anyway, as template-protection isn't supposed to be used for content disputes. Protection against edit warring is usually temporary, but I've kept the indefinite length to avoid the problem where the template would have reverted to no protection after a temporary full protection expired. I'll reduce the protection again after a week or so, or if a consensus is found about the issue under dispute. Feel free to send me a reminder ping if I forget. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right I suppose. But how could I imagine that someone would continue the edit war through the template protection? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Please merge Template:Infobox television season/sandbox2, which adds colour tracking (diff). Alakzi (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Or you could lower the protection which was pointlessly raised to full, to no one's benefit. It's been nearly twenty-four hours and we haven't as much as added basic tracking. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Ok, the tracking category is now live, so that is a start, at least. I know that this is frustrating and slow, but if you're expecting a super-quick resolution of this dispute, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. If I've learned anything about dispute resolution on Wikipedia, it's that it takes time. Wikipedia is great when everyone is chipping in and working towards the same goal, and there is no disagreement, but when you have to get several people with different opinions in different timezones to come to an agreement, it's inevitable that it's not going to happen right away. Yes, we need to make this site accessible. But we also can't afford to alienate our editors. By doing this through discussion and consensus we can have our cake and eat it as well - there's no reason that accessibility needs to come at the expense of editor retention. But it will take time. To paraphrase a programming aphorism, "Accessibility, editor retention, and speed - choose two". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The deadline is now. We do not wait to remove manifestly false content, and we do not wait to address accessibility, either. Please do not purport this to be a mere difference of opinion. It cannot be that the quality of the encyclopaedia is compromised until consensus is reached. The issue of editor retention is plainly overstated - what rational human being would object to accessibility? The only editor whom you've risked losing is me. Alakzi (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrong essay, buddy. "As a result, any misinformation found here could quickly spread" - this isn't misinformation. Are you possible looking for a different one? Alex|The|Whovian 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have linked to the correct essay; I made the analogy between dealing with misinformation and accessibility. Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Massively difference situations to be used as an analogy. Accessibility is a minor issue to the vast majority of our readers. Most people who have this as an issue have other adaptions they can use to work around their particular problem. We address accessibility because we think it is the polite thing to do. Even in the articles in question, the infobox text is a minor redundancy to same title at the top of the page compared to the table headers that use the same colors which is where the real problem lies. There is no rush to fix what has not been seen as a major problem up to now. Meta discussions are not leading us to a solution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not equate the two; I drew an analogy. We address accessibility because we think it is the polite thing to do. WP:ACCESS is a guideline; it is not a polite nod. There is no rush to fix what has not been seen as a major problem up to now. This is plainly fallacious. I recall we had a GA which was 100% fabricated; I suppose we should've waited with deleting it when we found out. Meta discussions are not leading us to a solution. Neither is refusing to acknowledge the importance of accessibility when compared to decoration leading us to a solution. Alakzi (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll see your "The deadline is now" and raise you a There is no deadline. Please be patient. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Naturally, you've addressed none of the points I made. Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If user agents were the solution to such issues, then WCAG would not need to exist, and neither would all the various related court cases, online tools, tutorials etc. We don't address accessibility out of politeness, but because the WMF requires that we do not discriminate against our readers on the basis of their disability. There is also a moral imperative not to do so; YMMV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: The colour check needs to be corrected with Special:Permalink/672285809. Alakzi (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so something may be wrong with the tracker, because I went to the category and saw pages I regularly edit, and I wanted to check their compliance with the Snook.ca site. In doing so, I found that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3), both in the category, are compliant. So I think the tracker needs a tweak. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I made a mistake; all of the template's transclusions have been placed in the category. Alakzi (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you test your edits before making the edit request? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You're quite the pest. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, be civil. You asked that code be implemented that you now admit has problems. I'm just asking whether you bothered to test that code. We don't want to see more problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Aussie's inquiry. We want to find out what this problem is, and now we've hit a snag because the cat isn't doing what it was intended to on the onset. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the tracking category code. (You can also reopen the protected edit request for things like this - you might well get a quicker response.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Results will be in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination. At the time of writing over 1,000 articles with poor accessibility have been identified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the formula for determining low contrast? A good deal of these seem perfectly fine to me. And if you're dealing with the infoboxes, what about the episode tables that use exactly the same colour scheme? Alex|The|Whovian 09:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
See [1] And the fact that they're "perfectly fine" to you is irrelevant, as I explained to you some days ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow. It was a genuine question and opinion, not a "it's perfect the way it is". Perhaps you need to cool down and quit the agenda of false accusations against other editors. Alex|The|Whovian 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was a genuine question - one to which I generously provided an answer - and a genuine opinion. However, it has also been explained to you, above, that subjective opinions about the suitability of a colour scheme are of no import; we have an objective scale - an international standard, no less - against which to test them. Please feel free to point out any false accusation you believe me to have made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
My opinion was not one that I was forcing upon the discussion - I am free to post it as I wish. Canvasing. Alex|The|Whovian 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You are indeed entitled to express your opinions. Indeed, no one has tried to stop you - but others, not least me, are entitled to point out when those opinions are rendered of no import by the existent of objective measures. My pointing out of AussieLegend's breach of WP:CANVASS was not false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you're always very quick to claim someone is canvassing, even when they aren't, usually when a discussion is not going your way and you're pretty much always proven to be wrong. Clearly the note at WT:TV was warranted, as Wikipedical's question above demonstrates and there was nothing to canvass at that point, so you're wrong yet again. Please stop trying to point-score against other editors and stick to the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Your allegations about me are false, but I'm happy to point your canvassing each time you do it, as in this case. A note may have been warranted, but the one you posted was an egregious breach of WP:CANVASS. You've been told often enough not to do this, and should know better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The formula is using AAA requirements of 7:1 to populate the the tracking category. The WGAWCAG recommendation recommends AA which is a 4.5:1 ratio and 3:1 for large text. We only need to provide 4.5:1 for small text and 3:1 for what is in this infobox so the tracking category is being overpopulated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
"WGA"? Meanwhile, WP:COLOR requires requires WCAG AAA level "when feasible"; in the articles in question, it is far from infeasible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:COLOR requires WGAG AA. "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level". That is all we are required to do and matches the WGA guidelines for sufficient accessibility. and AAA level when feasible is a goal, not a requirement. Lets work on meeting what we must do. Feasibility of doing more than is required is kind of the point of this discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No. The full quote is Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". So AAA is required, unless shown to be infeasible. In this case, it is feasible. Still no idea what you mean by WGA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is the point of the discussion no matter where you try to place the burden. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't edit your posts after others have commented on them. The point of this discussion is to find out how we can best ensure that instances of this template comply with the requirements of WP:COLOR to meet WCAG AAA, in order to cease breaching the WMF policy of not discriminating against people with a visual disability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
He is more than able to edit his posts after others have commented on the if they're a typo, and he hasn't modified the entire thing. There is no policy stating that he cannot. Especially if it is but a mere typo, something you deliberately kept pointing out. Alex|The|Whovian 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That he is able to do so has already been demonstrated. Per WP:REDACT: "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes." and "Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Is his edit affecting the integrity of your questioning of his typos? My, that's terrible. Alex|The|Whovian 11:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a simple corrction of a typo that seemed to be causing you immense confusion. He's fixed it so you're no longer confused. Let's move on shall we? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
And now you've done it again! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Get back on topic. This particular issue of yours isn't affecting anything. Alex|The|Whovian 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi has decided to take it upon himself to decide that if all of the articles aren't fixed by tomorrow now, he will be disruptively removing the parameters instead of helping out and fixing them himself. Due to his lack of helping and deciding that we are his slaves, he's also personally attacked the editors here. Link: User talk:Alakzi#Pathetic Alex|The|Whovian 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of note

We now have the removal of this note about WP:COLOR from the template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the value in having it in "Usage" and it's part of the parameter documentation. I don't believe we need it anywhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course not - god forbid we should make it prominent enough that it might actually reduce the harm currently being done by low-contrast colours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:SARCASM generally works really well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
As the one who removed the note, as I stated in my edit summary, you've added the directions to the appropriate parts of the template and hidden notes. We don't need to make it the very first thing in the doc. As I also stated, we don't use big bold notes for the fact that future season article links aren't supposed to be added until articles are created for those seasons, or that you don't put the date info until the dates actually pass. This is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Since fgcolour has been removed and forced to either black or white by template evaluation, the instructions about choosing color combinations make no logical sense. Need much better guidance in the doc for this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Also getting lost in all the meta discussions, is it possible that for any chosen background color a foreground color could be automatically chosen that will provide sufficient contrast to meet MOS:COLOR? Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And does the foreground colour have to be black or white only? After the suggestion about LCDs generally being unable to go to pure black or white, I've been doing testing on my CRT and LCD monitors and found plenty of colour combinations using black or white that are compliant but difficult to read, while some using neither black nor white are both compliant and readable. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo, as I see the current change to forced either black or white, it is choosing the best one based on what the background color is. Aussie, what type of foreground colors are you thinking of? Like a grey perhaps? And if the fgcolour field is no longer used, do we need a bot to go around to the articles to remove it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: The problem is that it is currently not always choosing the correct foreground color correctly as Aussie has demonstrated. Also the foreground chosen may be better but might not be WP:COLOR conformant for all possible backgrounds. I was just asking if that was possible, if so there is a potential solution that would pretty much keep everyone happy. Editors give up foreground choices but still can pick background. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. My first notice of the change was at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1), where the foreground color was changed from white to black. So I just assumed it made the better choice. (which I think it is, I'm going to double check that.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Where has this alleged failure to generate a complaint colour-pair been demonstrated? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue we are working on is that most displays in common use can't generate the theoretical compliant black and the actual black being displayed is less readable than if white had been chosen. Details are in the above discussions. We may want to change the threshold for choosing black or white to more favor white or possibly some other color in some cases. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll repast the - as yet unanswered - question I asked in a different section above: "I can't seem to find a reference to LCD monitors in WAG. Which section is it in?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Make your point directly. The fact that WAG didn't specify display technology does not detract from the observation that it seems to matter and given choices that all conform to AA requirements we may wish to choose the one the works best on real displays, not the theoretically perfect ones. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Which beings us back to subjective opinions vs. objective measurement. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
When human eyes look at a monitor, whether it be LCD or CRT, it's always subjective. Technical standards can say how to generate something digitally but the eye won't necessarily see it because eyes are analogue devices and they're all different. We have to use some common sense when applying standards, which is why when we write them (yes, I have written standards) we don't expect them to be followed to the letter at all costs. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion going forward, is possibly find just the articles that are not even AA compliant. Deal with those and get those compliant, and then see what we are left with for the ones that are not quite AAA. Because they may be perfectly fine, given as Aussie pointed out, our eyes are analog devices, trying to see digitally created content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If we force the changes being advocated by some people, we're only fixing part of the problem, for some of the people. The infoboxes will be fine, but episode tables will still be an issue. To me, that's a poor solution. I think Favre1fan93's proposal is heading on the right track. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Who has argued that episode tables should not be fixed also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If we don't make those articles AAA compliant at first pass i) we'd be negligent (not to mention in breach of WMF policy) and ii) we'd have to do the work again, at second pass. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Any implied WMF anti-discrimination policy is met with WCAG AA compliance. The desire to go beyond that is nice but more than is necessary for that purpose. I suspect that the current solution of forcing black or white may have already solved the AA compliance requirement. I would like data to back up my supposition. I would also like so see if there is any solution to the table header problem which I think is a much more significant problem than the colors in the infobox. If e black/white color fix thworks for the infobox I wonder if there is a similar way to fix the table headers - this may be a larger issue than can be worked here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Remembering that for every article in which we fix the episode table column headers, we also have to fix the related "List of episodes" article's series overview table. It's a huge job, even with only 1,000 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You're making things up. If we only meet AA, then we are discriminating against those more severely affected by their disability, for whom AAA but not AA provides a solution. And the WMF policy is not implied; it is published at the URL given previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You're reading far too much into that WMF legal policy boilerplate statement that all US companies must have and pay homage to. Absent some other interpretation from WMF legal all we are required by US law to do is provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading what's written. And in this case, AAA is the reasonable accommodation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree with your interpretation as discussed previously. We'd be talking policy issues in this discussion instead of how to best implement a style guideline if WMF had a specific requirement they wanted to force on their projects. WP:COLOR asserts AA as the hard requirement, AAA is a strongly desired goal, when feasible. The feasible part given other constraints and project goals is the point of this overall discussion. There is no dispute about the goal. Pushing one specific implementation without exploring alternatives is not helpful in resolving the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You have yet to advance any argument as to why it is infeasible (or indeed, unreasonable) to comply with AAA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well covered by many at the beginning of #Colour and on, don't need to rehash it. There is likely to be a solution, might not be the exact one you desire. And we don't need to rush to implement it and we have time to get it right. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No such arguments are advanced in any part of that section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that with the change to force black or white text we do meet AAA because we are using bold fonts in the header with sizes 14 pt. or larger (per WC3 Contrast Enhanced - Large Text) and are getting contrast ratios larger than the required 4.5:1. Tables headers would also conform if text were 14pt bold with appropriate black or white based on background color. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But not all the affected text is that large, so that's irrelevant; and we still fail to meet AAA in over a thousand instances of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Template is checking for 7:1 to populate category. Looking at template source font size is being forced either bold 110% or 1.5em both produce large text. That should be sufficient to be classed as "Large Text". If not, adjusting text size to meet standard for being classified as "Large Text" for colored background, would provide AAA conformance. 1.2em bold or 1.5em non-bold should do it per WC3 doc. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If .7 is the goal we all desire and it is likely that .5 is what we are getting just forcing black or white text, would if be possible to force luminance values between .3 and .7 to be .3 or .7 based on what is closer for background color. Match that with picking black or white for text we would get .7 contrast. If minor changes to luminance were all that was done with the color hue and saturation staying the same, would the user base accept that? Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another thought. If the project editors ignore minor luminance issues in their color choices a bot following the tracking category could make fixes in all the articles that use this template and make the corresponding changes in the table headers at the same time. This has the benefit that the bot would explain what is going on and why and we could individually work with the editors on articles that disagreed with the color changes. Hopefully with a good bot explanation this shouldn't happen much. We would get overall AAA conformance over time, fix the related tables as well as the infobox, and maintain a collaborative environment in the article where this matters to the editors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise: a possible way forward

@Geraldo Perez: Am I reading this correctly: that some AA-compliant color combinations may be made AAA-compliant by increasing the point size of the text or bolding the text? BTW, could you explain to me -- briefly, please -- what is the significance of these non-AAA-compliant color combinations to the subject TV series (if any)? Why do we care about using these non-compliant color combinations if other compliant combinations are readily available? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Yes, both size and contrast matter for both AA and AAA compliance. Large text will comply with lower contrast. AAA requires contrast of 7:1 for normal font sized and stroke sized text (12pts non-bold nominally). If size is increased to 1.2em (14pts) and bolded or 1.5em (18pts) non-bold only need 4.5:1 contrast for compliance. see this and specifically this large scale text section.
As to why we care: editors of many of the articles that use this template have deliberately chosen a color scheme that they believe is significant to the series for a given season and use those colors in a number of interrelated articles about that TV series as a color tag for that season. Background color seems to matter the most. We would like to gain concensus for what they may believe are significant changes to their chosen color scheme and not force changes by implementing a guideline in the infobox template being used. Basically courtesy to other editors and desire to make changes by concensus when possible.
My general position in this is that we should make minor changes to the template to get to AA compliance (and the forcing of black/white text already accomplished AA compliance for all the colors I have tested using this tool) and let the article editors make the appropriate changes to both the infobox and same colored table headers as they think appropriate. I also noted that while playing with that tool that a minor change to also ensure 1.2em bold in text with colored background and proper choice of black or white text will ensure AAA compliance no matter what background color is currently in the article and be minimally disruptive and likely unnoticed to existing articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: Individual editor preference is not a particularly good reason for the use of colors, let alone contrast non-compliant colors; from your comments above, I think you know this already. From what you just wrote above, there is no reason why most, if not all of these articles could not use any contrast-compliant color scheme, or, for that matter, no colors at all -- other than individual editor preference at the article level. In the absence of colors logically tied to (a) a uniform season-by-season scheme for all TV series, or (b) a defined scheme with some logical and/or self-evident connection to the particular series or set of related season articles, the colors really serve no particular informational purpose and are dangerously close to decorative-only (a no-no). If the only supporting reason for colors is individual editor preference, thendark red, blue, green, purple, black with white text provide far better contrast than electric green with neon yellow text, or dark red with green text. I suspect you know this already, too. Most of these TV season articles are regularly maintained by one, two, three . . . editors; that's a pretty thin local "consensus" on which to disregard the color contrast guideline, especially when many of the older articles aren't even being actively expanded or maintained.
I'm here as an uninvolved third-party to see if a compromise resolution of this discussion may be possible. I've been through my own recent accessibility-compliance issues with infobox templates within my own usual areas of editing, so I bring a healthy sense of skepticism when Template Editor A and Template Editor B show up from central casting and demand "accessibility" and/or color-contrast compliance, but I must say that WikiProject Television seems to be skating on pretty thin ice, with very little rational support for non-compliance in many of these examples. WP:TV editors need to be a little more flexible with regard to color selection, or they may find themselves at odds with the larger community as to whether TV series articles should be using colors at all. That said, let's get down to some specific examples, let's get the questions answered below about whether the 1,000+ infoboxes in question are AA-compliant, AAA-compliant, or neither, and let's see if there isn't some reasonable framework by which WP:TV can foster ~90% compliance in a relatively short period of time. This is not something that needs to be resolved in the next 24 hours, but no one should harbor the expectation that this can be stone-walled indefinitely. Let's see where there is room for compromise. I am a sympathetic ear, but I also believe the guidelines are there for a good reason. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I have also been trying for a compromise resolution to the issue and have proposed a number of possible ones. Everyone in this discussion accepts the AAA goal, question is best path to getting there. Whether or not to force a solution on involved TV series editors by immediately forcing colors in this template is the crux of the problem. Most TV series editors who have made these conscious color choices believe that the color is supplemental information and not mere decoration and ties related articles about a TV series together. My personal preferred solution is remove color choices completely from the template, leave season colors in the tables only, and take any heat as necessary as was done with the other templates in WP:TV. Experience has shown that this is very contentious with some season articles and other commenters on this issue believe that it should be a goal to avoid that hassle. I'll wait to see how others respond to your questions. Good to see additional involvement here and hope it leads to a resolution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: If we can get a breakdown on non-compliance, etc., as I have suggested below, we can use that information to prod editors of articles with different classes of compliance. For example, we could provide notice to the editors of the AA-compliant articles, on the article talk pages, that they have 30 or 60 days to select a new AAA-compliant color scheme. That would allow an editor-based solution -- nothing would be forced on them, they could pick whatever AAA-compliant color scheme they agreed on. For non-compliant articles that fall below AA-compliant, I would suggest we remove the colors, leave a talk page notice, and only permit the re-adding of color schemes that are AAA-compliant. Unless there is some very sound logic presented for particular AA-compliant exceptions, I see no reason why the editors of the individual articles should not simply select a new AAA-compliant color combination of their own choosing. If the article editors fail to meet the deadline, then the colors will be removed and/or WP:TV choose a new AAA-compliant color scheme for those articles. From there, we can talk about encoding the template itself so that it will only accept AAA-compliant color combinations after the deadline, as several editors have suggested above. What's your reaction to that as a rough road map going forward? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: That is all fine with me. Give the involved editors a chance to pick a new color scheme before trying to force one on them - good collaborative compromise. That way they can propagate it across all articles and fix the table headers as well which are also not in compliance. 30 days is a reasonable deadline. As stated below we are currently AA compliant in the infobox on all articles with the latest change to force black or white text that gives greatest contrast. If this is in doubt another tracking category with only AA non-complient colors could be created - I would be very surprised if there were anything in it. Also, to reiterate, any color scheme that is currently AA compliant can be made AAA compliant with 1.2em bold text. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: We're generally on the same page then, GP. As Frietjes indicates below, these 1000 or so articles are already AA-compliant so they can sit for another 30 days, as they have apparently sat for years. Let's get Aussie Legend and the rest of the WP:TV herd back in this discussion and see if we can't thrash out a deal. Has Mr. Stradivarius been functioning as a neutral admin or an involved party in this discussion? If neutral, he can say a "consensus" amen over any compromise reached. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Providing 30 days notice and then pulling the colors from the infobox (and accompanying tables) sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. The problem didn't occur overnight, and it doesn't need to be fixed overnight. One thing to note: it looks like the table headings are not using the contrast-switching code, so editors fixing their color schemes should be asked to make sure they change the color of text in the table headings to match the automatically-selected color in the infobox. Choess (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point, Choess. That should be included in WP:TV's color-contrast instruction page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
We could give editors 1,000 days notice and I seriously doubt most would do anything, so 30 days seems as good a number as any. AlexTheWhovian has created {{Episode table}} to help editors add headers to episode tables. Perhaps code could be added to that to ensure compliance? Unfortunately the template is only a month old and has only been added to a little over 200 articles, so it's not an immediate fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, Aussie, but part of the solution is to invite the the article editors to solve the problem for themselves. As you have noted, the colors were selected by editors at the article level for particular reasons known only to them. As Andy has noted, non-compliant color selection, based on nothing more than personal preference, is a pretty weak justification for the use of colors at all. And Geraldo and you have both hinted that maybe no colors at all might be the best resolution, but that is not a politically tenable outcome within WP:TV. All things considered, this is probably the politically most viable resolution for everyone. If anyone cares enough to change the non-compliant colors, they have plenty of time to do so; if they don't care enough, well, then it's hardly worth arguing over, right? The power to chose contrast-compliant colors remains in the hands of the article editors, and they can still change to a compliant regime after the deadline passes. As I understand it, the template either can be or already has been encoded to permit only AAA-compliant combinations going forward -- is that correct? If so, and everyone agrees this is a reasonable accommodation for all concerned, perhaps we should focus on the wording of the 30-day notice, a WP:TV color-section instructions page, where the notice goes other than the article talk pages, and how the notice gets delivered (MMS?). Also, what happens when the 30-day deadline passes -- do we auto-insert a neutral color scheme that can be modified by the article editors later, or does WP:TV want to select new AAA-compliant color schemes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't disagreeing with 30 days, just warning that we're very likely to see no action regardless of the time. After the 30 days the colour code in the infobox should be pulled and the colours in the episode table headers and |LineColor= set to dbe9f4. That colour gives a good contrast while still retaining delineation between episode entries in the tables. This is something I've experimented with for a long time (just one example). It's likely to be a lot easier than selecting colour schemes. We can work on doing that later. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The "experimental" colour scheme in your example seems to have been replaced with one that doesn't even reach "AA", and indeed fails "AAA" even at large text sizes - no doubt this is indicative of the wider problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Of the 19 season articles, only 4 (8, 9, 13 & 17) didn't comply in some form. That's a series predominantly edited by younger editors, so it's actually a pretty good result all things considered. I would have expected it to be far worse. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to one, not 19, articles: List of Arthur episodes - the one you gave in your example. It does not meet AA. I'm not clear why you think the age of editors is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The colours used in List of Arthur episodes, and indeed any "List of <foo> episodes" page is taken from the individual season articles. If the main episode list article is non-compliant, it's because the season articles are not compliant. The episode tables are transcluded from the season articles so the only colour in the List of episodes is normally in the series overview table. At List of Arthur episodes there is additional content that uses colour but that's all compliant so only 4 table cells in the article are actually non-compliant. If you want to fix any other content in the article that appears non-compliant, you have to edit a season article. In the TV project articles to a younger audience are generally more problematic than articles targeted at older audiences. This is not limited to episode articles, it's a sad fact in all of the related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"we're very likely to see no action regardless of the time" For the sake of all the drama this topic has caused, I hope you're wrong, but am afraid you're probably right. Not to single anyone out, we all had best intentions (if not the proper execution), but one takeaway should be that a bold edit should not automatically be dismissed while citing "no prior consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to affirm that the way forward, as outlined by Dirtlawyer1, is agreeable to me. It is. See Mr. Stadivarius' comment in the section below regarding AA compliance. Alakzi (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alakzi. Once everyone is on the same page, perhaps we can follow up regarding your suggestion that we use Wiikpedia's Mass Messaging Service to deliver the 30-day notices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the problem folks are having with this topic? I honestly can barely make sense of the posts so far. Is it that people think AA is good enough? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Colour contrast. As to why people object to fixing the problem immediately, your guess is as good as mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Short summary: Many of the television season articles that use color in their infobox and/or episode tables are not AAA compliant per WP:COLOR (with some not even AA compliant). Alakzi proposed a coding method to help solve the issue, by defaulting the foreground color to either black or white to get closer to compliancy, based on the current background color. The discussion now, is how can we appropriately take care of the some 900+ articles that are not compliant, given many colors are chosen specifically due to a variety of reasons (such as a color on the home media release) without out right removing all color from these articles (as had been done). Current proposal on the table is notifying all offending articles to change their color to become compliant within 30 days of the message, at which point they will be removed or arbitrarily replaced I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Thank you for the summary. Truly appreciated. There are a lot of articles to take care of, but we could just try chipping away at it. If 10 people changed 10 per day, we'd be done in a little over a week. I did a handful yesterday. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions to move color-contrast issues forward to resolution

  • This tracking category, Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination, was created to identify all uses of the template wherein the current color-contrast index is non-compliant, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we get a breakdown of the existing non-compliant uses that are (1) AA-compliant, but not AAA-compliant, and (2) neither AA nor AAA-compliant? The idea being that it's important to understand the depth and scope of the contrast compliance problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No it isn't; it's only important to understand that only compliant combinations should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • using Template:Greater color contrast ratio will always generate a pair which is at least AA (i.e., > 4.5), so the category is only listing pairs which are AA but not AAA (i.e., > 7). Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Frietjes: Thanks, that's exactly what I needed to know. Andy says there are too many existing compliant color combinations to list, and that may be so as a practical matter. Is there any way we could generate a list of the top 25 compliant combinations by number of existing uses? We could provide that top-25 list to the article editors for easy use per the thread between Geraldo Perez and myself above. That would give the article editors themselves the opportunity to select their own compliant color schemes in the 30 days after notice. I trust that it would not be a problem to have a bot drop the 30-day notice on each of the article talk pages? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I doubt a "top 25" would help; the issue revolves around an alleged insistence - for which no justification (and indeed no evidence, though I'm prepared to accept it may be so) has been offered other than an apparent personal aesthetic ILIKEIT - by some editors on having an arbitrary colour scheme in individual articles. See also WP:BLIKESHED WP:BIKESHED.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
          • WP:BIKESHED* ? Alex|The|Whovian 11:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
          • @Pigsonthewing: Please read the discussion thread above between myself and Geraldo Perez. I have proposed a 30-day deadline for voluntary compliance by article editors, followed by the auto-removal and/or auto-selection of new AAA-compliant color schemes for those articles whose editors do not voluntarily comply by the deadline, coupled with template coding that will require/force editors to select AAA-compliant colors in the future. Assuming there is consensus to accept these reasonable steps, all 1,000+ of these articles will be fully color-contrast compliant in the next month or so, but without any further rhetorical drama, edit-warring, ANI reports, talk page insults, or good editors getting blocked. I think that's an excellent compromise, especially since it would resolve the WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns 100% in favor of compliance with the AAA color contrast standard (exactly what you have requested, just not on your timeline). The "top 25" list is simply a device to make it easier for the actual article editors to voluntarily select a AAA-compliant color scheme already in use; if the article editors want to use the Snook color-contrast tool, they remain free to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure that's true. I did a manual scan of the first 142 pages (titles 2–B) and found 3 AA-noncompliant pages: Alias (season 5), American Dad (season 12), and Bad Girls Club (season 9). I think there are a few colors that will not reach the 4.5:1 ratio with either black or white text. Regardless, looking at the most recent edits to the template, I can see the magic formula "> 7" in the code; I don't do enough template work to want to try, but I assume a good template editor could modify the conditional statements there to generate one category for ratios < 4.5 and another for those ≥ 4.5 but < 7. (Incidentally, 4 pages came up AAA-compliant in the external tool at snook.ca; it looks like they have a contrast ratio of exactly 7. Technically, I think it would be more correct to use ≥ rather than > in computing the category, as the WCAG specify a ratio of "at least 7:1", rather than "more than 7:1". Not that it would hurt to tweak their color to raise the contrast a little above the absolute minimum for AAA.) Choess (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we get a list of existing color combinations that are AAA-compliant? The idea being that these color combinations are approved and may be used for new articles, and to replace existing non-compliant color combinations, without further argument. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we get a list of existing color combinations that are neither AA nor AAA-compliant? The idea being that these combinations must be replaced as soon as possible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at WikiProject Accessibility and WikiProject Television.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not really sure if my response to this would fit anywhere above, so I'm just starting out here. I've been a somewhat outside observer to this discussion since the start. I fully agree that our color choices should be compliant, and we should do our best to make them so. There was even recently a healthy discussion about color use at List of Arrow episodes that does show this can be possible. Now, after seeing Alakzi's deemed method of completely removing all color from the articles in the tracking category, I did not agree with that route. Partially because the discussion here, in my eyes, were still on going, and to start out just wiping color from all the pages isn't the best solution if that had not been previously discussed. I'm not too familiar with how to get the template coded, but I've been seeing what Geraldo Perez has been suggesting in the section above, and I'm in agreement with what they have been trying to put forward for solutions. I also feel Dirtlawyer's proposal of notifying offending articles about the need to change the color within 30 days is the way to go. Surely if there are active editors on the page, they can come through to change it. I had two articles in the list that I regularly work on (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) and Agent Carter (season 1)) and I was able to change both of their colors to be compliant after spending maybe 10 minutes or so on the Snook.ca site for each page, and adjusting the faders from the original non-compliant colors to make them so. So it can be done. Now, one other thing I will mention that I feel is important (as I believe has been discussed before), is the color of a season generally stems from some identifiable color on a home media release. When notifying these articles, especially the ones that have images, is there a way to suggest to them similar colors that would be compliant? (From what I'm reading in this discussion, I feel the answer is no). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The Color Contrast Analyser listed at WP:COLOUR provdes a palette that allows users to more quickly find a compliant colour for a given pair. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm also going to add that it doesn't help that at Lists of colors (A-Z), some of the examples are not AAA compliant. In attempting to adjust Agents of SHIELD (season 1), I went here looking at the Browns and Cyans to get a new color, and a few that I placed in the Snook site came back as not compliant. So that is not helping us with this issue, if some other user goes there to find a new similar color to replace an existing one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I am unaware of the color-coding tie-ins to season DVD releases. I certainly would have no objection to that as long as the colors chosen are compliant. If WP:TV thinks this important enough, WP:TV editors could prepare an instructions page as a subpage in WikiProject space with the color-contrast tool, a list of pre-approved color combinations, with an explanation of the color tie-ins to the DVD releases. The article talk page notices could link back to the WP:TV instructions page. That said, if WP:TV wants that, WP:TV will need to take responsibility for it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: That's generally the idea put forth, but is not always the case. An example of such is for Arrow, which I linked above, Its home media has no "distinguishing" color for the season, so the editors there just decided to work with various shades of green (since he's the Green Arrow from DC Comics). We have a little piece on color conforming in WP:TVOVERVIEW, but I'm sure the project could make a more indepth one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"a list of pre-approved color combinations" This is a non-starter for reasons already stated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: There is no reason that WP:TV cannot have a top-25 list of pre-approved, AAA-compliant color combinations, Andy. None. Nada. Zip. Let's not erect unnecessary hurdles here. At the end of the day, you and I don't care what colors they use, only that they are color-contrast compliant, and article editors can still use the Snook color-contrast tool if they choose to. If having a list of contrast-compliant color combinations makes it easier for article editors to get corrective action completed, why should we not support that? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't claimed that "WP:TV cannot have a top-25 list of pre-approved, AAA-compliant color combinations"; I said "I doubt a 'top 25' would help"; and I have already given my reasons for saying that; as can be seen above (hence "for reasons already stated"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the procedure right, people are choosing colors de novo for each season, based on considerations of that season's media and features of the series itself. So the "top n" most commonly used color combinations are not likely to be all that common, and for any individual currently-noncompliant article, a list of known-good combinations derived from "TV season articles" in the aggregate is unlikely to provide much guidance. If there's this much interest in fine-grained customization then I'm not sure there's a better solution than just linking to the tool and letting those with an interest have at it. In which case a month sounds like a reasonable amount of time to allot for it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Given black or white for text it should be possible to do what Favre1fan93 did manually and suggest a background color with the same hue and saturation but changed value to meet the 7:1 contrast requirement. I don't think that is really practical though for a simple message and editors may wish to rethink all the seasons color tagging for all related articles, not just the ones that don't conform to AAA, we should give them a chance. Also it would be polite to drop a message on the main TV series and episode list talk pages as well as those are impacted as well with changes in color tagging. The big reason I like to get the article editors involved is that they can change all the colors to be AAA compliant, not just the infobox ones. A much better way to get the whole set of article compliant, not just the infobox for season pages. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Lists of colors provides, er, lists of colours, not contrasting pairs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected template edit request

I can't generate a proper protected edit request for this (replace x with y) but could an admin familiar with template editing, possibly Mr. Stradivarius, change the existing template to modify the test for compliance to exclude the colors exactly at 7:1 from the tracking category, currently improperly placed there and add a tracking category for AA non-compliance with similar code but with a threshold of 4.5:1. This is to help get us started. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 

}}<!-- Start tracking -->{{Main other|{{#ifeq:{{{celebrity_winner|♠}}}{{{professional_winner|♠}}}{{{cust_label_1|♠}}}{{{cust_data_1|♠}}}|♠♠♠♠||[[Category:Television season articles that use custom fields|{{#ifeq:{{{celebrity_winner|♠}}}|♠||W}}{{#ifeq:{{{professional_winner|♠}}}|♠||P}}{{#ifeq:{{{cust_label_1|♠}}}|♠||L}}{{#ifeq:{{{cust_data_1|♠}}}|♠||D}}]]}}{{#if:{{{bgcolour|}}}{{{bgcolor|}}}{{{headercolour|}}}{{{headercolor|}}}|{{#switch:1|{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:Color contrast|ratio|{{ifempty|{{{bgcolour|}}}|{{{bgcolor|}}}|{{{headercolour|}}}|{{{headercolor|}}}}}|black}} > 7|1}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:Color contrast|ratio|{{ifempty|{{{bgcolour|}}}|{{{bgcolor|}}}|{{{headercolour|}}}|{{{headercolor|}}}}}|white}} > 7|1}}=|[[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination]]}}}}}}<!-- End tracking --><noinclude>{{Documentation}}<!-- place category and language links on the /doc sub-page, not here --></noinclude>

... needs to be changed to: 

}}<!-- Start tracking -->{{Main other|{{#ifeq:{{{celebrity_winner|♠}}}{{{professional_winner|♠}}}{{{cust_label_1|♠}}}{{{cust_data_1|♠}}}|♠♠♠♠||[[Category:Television season articles that use custom fields|{{#ifeq:{{{celebrity_winner|♠}}}|♠||W}}{{#ifeq:{{{professional_winner|♠}}}|♠||P}}{{#ifeq:{{{cust_label_1|♠}}}|♠||L}}{{#ifeq:{{{cust_data_1|♠}}}|♠||D}}]]}}{{#if:{{{bgcolour|}}}{{{bgcolor|}}}{{{headercolour|}}}{{{headercolor|}}}|{{#switch:1|{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:Color contrast|ratio|{{ifempty|{{{bgcolour|}}}|{{{bgcolor|}}}|{{{headercolour|}}}|{{{headercolor|}}}}}|black}} >= 7|1}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:Color contrast|ratio|{{ifempty|{{{bgcolour|}}}|{{{bgcolor|}}}|{{{headercolour|}}}|{{{headercolor|}}}}}|white}} >= 7|1}}=|[[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination]]}}}}}}<!-- End tracking --><noinclude>{{Documentation}}<!-- place category and language links on the /doc sub-page, not here --></noinclude>

Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done I've updated the template to exclude colours at exactly 7:1 from being added to the tracking category. I also took the opportunity to indent the code and to use an #ifexpr instead of a #switch, which I think makes the code easier to read. @Geraldo Perez: I did consider adding separate categories for AA combinations and AA non-compliance, even to the point of writing the code and creating the categories. However, after actually looking at how the ratios are calculated, I can confirm what Alakzi and Frietjes have been saying - it is mathematically impossible for {{greater color contrast ratio}} to produce a non-AA-compliant colour pair. That means that the AA-non-compliance category would be guaranteed to be empty and that the AA-combination category would contain the exact same pages as the current tracking category. So I deleted them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Why is this template still fully protected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To stop people from edit-warring over the template again. That would probably end up in people getting blocked, which I would really quite like to avoid. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion re: infoboxes w/o image but with color access issues

"the general consensus in the TV project is that when DVD artwork is available we choose an infobox and episode list colour that matches the artwork"—AussieLegend

Would it be reasonable to assume that for articles that do not currently have any DVD artwork in the infobox, having a complementary color in the infobox is not as high of a priority? If so, perhaps a tracking category can further narrow down the articles with access problems that also have an image in the infobox, and those articles can be prioritized for action. Presumably, there would be little or no objection to removing the color for now from articles without artwork, as a default color would not be clashing with any existing artwork already on the page.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this. One tracker for articles with images, and another for ones with out images. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think that small aesthetic considerations should trump COLOR. In both cases, we can easily tweak colors to meet COLOR and match any images if they exist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, meeting COLOR is non-negotiable. What I am asking is whether it helps reduce everyone's workload to concentrate for now on manually changing the colors only on pages that already have images—where there is a concern for matching the color with the existing artwork—and using the default color for now for the flagged articles that don't currently have artwork.—Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, it is good that everyone now agrees that AAA-compliance is the goal. That said, your comment that meeting "COLOR is non-negotiable" ignores the explicit language of the guideline itself:
"Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible[.]"
"When feasible" is subject to interpretation, not some absolute edict as one editor suggested above. A reasonable interpretation of "when feasible" would be "unless there is a valid reason for using AA-compliant colors in a particular circumstance." Otherwise, interpreting "when feasible" as a nearly absolute requirement of AAA-compliance makes the guideline's discussion of a AA-compliant minimum pointless. In the case of this particular template, there really is no justification for using particular non-AAA-compliant color combinations other than the personal preferences of the editors at the article level and all of the discussion participants eventually accepted that. There may be other circumstances, wherein an infobox utilizes some form of "official colors" or the like, for which the AA-minimum may come into play. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba said WP:COLOR is not negotiable, not that everything must be AAA. I think for the tv infoboxes that any non-AAA situations will be the exception and can be dealt with individually. I can imagine for sports team boxes or something similar that the color issues might be different, but at least here there's little reason not to achieve AAA as it's probably "feasible" 99% of the time. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, as applied to this particular template and its circumstance, I agree with you. But at least one editor was aggressively treating AAA-compliance as "non-negotiable" in the discussion above, and that simply not the way the language of the guideline is worded. And he's not the only person I've seen make that assertion in the last 48 hours; folks need to read the guideline a little more carefully regarding the AA minimum and the AAA goal. It would not be the first time someone has aggressively asserted accessibility concerns that were not supported by the "wise old men" at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
What is this about? He did not say it's not negotiable in all circumstances, ever; it's not negotiable in this instance. Alakzi (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I haven't seen anyone "treating AAA-compliance as 'non-negotiable'"; please can you provide a diff? That said, no one has yet provided any justification for an exception, other then other editors' hypothetical personal aesthetic preferences; which is of course not a valid justification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:: You can also get from AA to AAA by changing text font size to 1.2em bold text. This is an escape for those who want the colors but don't mind larger fonts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a kludgey workaround to selectively make some infoboxes have larger fonts than others, unless one is willing to get community-wide consensus to change the base font-size in Template:Infobox itself.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, EvergreenFir: 1.2em bold as a fix is only needed for text that has a non-white background. Normal black on white text has a contrast ratio of 21:1 obviously AAA compliant. subheaderstyle = font-weight: bold; font-size: 110% (120% would be needed as already bold) and captionstyle = font-size: 95%; line-height: 1.5em (100% would be needed as 1.5em otherwise is sufficient for non-bold) in current template look close to the size requirement to move AA to AAA compliance so it would only be a minor change if I am reading the code correctly. Color contrast improvement is not the only solution to achieving the AAA goal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"when feasible" refers to AAA, not AA. AA is required by WP:COLOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Presumably, there would be little or no objection to removing the color for now from articles without artwork Don't presume anything with editors of TV articles. Some, especially those who edit as IPs or register just to edit a particular article, can be quite rabid with their editing. I've lost count of the number of arguments (which started with a polite note on their talk page) I've had over attempts to reverse an edit that was against multiple policies or guidelines, or some long-standing consensus that an editor with less than half-a-dozen edits to his name would not accept. I'm all for removing custom colours from the infobox but it's a step that has to be taken cautiously. This is especially true now, at a time when the kids are on holidays in the US and many season articles are being created well ahead of when they should be. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh lordy lord - what are you blabbering on about? We're not going to hold off addressing accessibility because of how children might react. By the way, the "Legend" is your signature is illegible; have you read WP:COLOR? Alakzi (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I never said we should hold off, did I? As for my signature, I can read it fine, even on an LCD monitor and have you looked at the National colours of Australia? colours. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You said that we should proceed "cautiously" and left it at that. We are yet to receive your approval on addressing this issue in any manner. Alakzi (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Proceeding cautiously does not mean holding off. I said Don't presume anything with editors of TV articles. It was merely a warning about expectations when dealing with some TV editors. I wasn't aware that I had to approve anything. I thought I could just agree, which I already have. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I must've missed it. Alakzi (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: You also argue, elsewhere, that it would be "nice, but not necessary, to get the rest to AAA compliance". So which of the two is your real position? And why have the participants in this discussion not (or, rather, why have only some, selectively) been invited to that one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: You can read it fine? Bully for you. Now read WP:Colour contrast. (Also, the national colours of Australia are not green, gold and #F8FCFF - the latter being the page background, against which your sig is unreadable to many.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
We have yet to hear from any of these hypothetical, unnamed editors. And if they behave as described, we have better ways of dealing with them than by humouring them to the detriment of both the project and our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This deliberate tag-team baiting is unacceptable. It's crap like this that forced me to stay away from this page until Dirtlawyer1 asked me to come back. Please concentrate on the issue at hand, which is the template, not my signature. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no "tag-team baiting". This is an issue that both Alakzi and I have a long0standing and wide-ranging interest in. And you're no "shy violet" when it comes to robust debate. Furthermore, my comment on the "hypothetical, unnamed editors", and their supposed behaviour, which you introduced in support of your position, is a legitimate point. Trying to silence debate by crying wolf won't wash. Nor will it distract people from the unanswered question, above, about your contradictory positions here and in the invite-only discussion in your user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy and Alakzi: The discussion of Aussie's signature is way off-topic here, and is provocative. Please focus on implementing the evolving plan for voluntary compliance, deadline and any further changes to be made to the template. This kind of tit-for-tat rhetoric is UNCIVIL, unnecessary, unproductive, and does not contribute in any way to an atmosphere of cooperation, collaboration and collegiality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense; both his sig and his responses here to comments on it are pertinent to his understanding of, and attitude towards. accessibility and those readers who need us to be mindful of it; and thus pertinent to the current discussion.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, sir, you are baiting a discussion participant, Andy, and you know it. This is a talk page about Template:Infobox television series, and there is an extended and important discussion about color-contrast compliance for that template. Arguing with another discussion participant over the colors of his user signature is off topic; if you want to have that discussion, there are other forums, including his user talk page. I am involved in this discussion to reduce the rhetoric and focus the parties on achieving the goal of color-contrast compliance with a minimum of fuss. I respectfully request your cooperation in reducing the rhetoric and encouraging an atmosphere of cooperation, collaboration and collegiality, and focus on your reason for taking part. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Noted your Blatant canvassing with personal attacks. So much for "reduce the rhetoric"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I'm trying to keep you, and others, from getting blocked. Unfortunately, you don't seem to get that. And asking for administrator assistance is not "canvassing" per WP:CANVASS. Please dial it back, and no further comments will be ncessary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The only two admins you approached are already involved. Pull the other one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The priority here is making sure the reader-facing content gets sorted out, right? And we want to do it in a way that will minimize the long-term maintenance burden, which means collaborating with the people whose long-term interest is in the topic area rather than in the wide-ranging technical fixes. If we pay attention to what the experienced TV editors are thinking about how to work with the local editor base, and don't get distracted by "internal" matters that don't affect readers, it will pay off in less maintenance effort later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Dirtlawyer1 has asked me to look at this discussion and judge the consensus, and I have just read the whole discussion again to refresh my memory. However, your comment just above saying "The only two admins you approached are already involved" gives me pause, as I assume I am one of the admins you are referring to. Would you object to me closing the discussion and implementing any technical aspects of the close? I don't consider myself as involved (in the sense of WP:INVOLVED) here, but if you would like we can always get another admin to carry out the close. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. You are not mentioned in the diff to which I referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification message

Following on from my close, I have prepared a notification message for all the affected articles at Template talk:Infobox television season/Color mass message. It is just a rough draft at the moment - anyone is free to help improve it. I plan to send it off in the next day or so. I've also compiled a list here of talk pages where the message will be posted. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you for your close. However, "All television season articles should use colour contrast ratios that satisfy WCAG 2.0 AAA." is not ""Dirtlawyer1's proposal"; it was User:Alakzi who first raised that here. Credit where due. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't intend to deny credit to anyone, and you're right that it was Alakzi who first brought the issue up here. I just meant that Alakzi's idea was included in Dirtlawyer's proposal, as the entire proposal is based on the premise that we change all the season article colours to be AAA-compliant. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Color compliance

Hey all, I saw the mass message across a bunch of articles on my watchlist. I'm wondering if there's not a quicker way to approach series that have multiple seasons instead of having to go through each one and manually test the colors. Ostensibly in an episode list, if we gave a crap about aesthetics, we'd be sure that all the colors are harmonious. Anyone know of any kind of palette creator that also checks for WCAG 2 AAA compliance? So like, I decide "we're using black text", then start with one background color (SpongeBob yellow), and the software then creates a palette that would not only be harmonious, but WCAG 2 AAA compliant? This tool is on the right track, but requires me to hand-pick my own color palette instead of choosing colors that art science has deemed beautiful.

(edit conflict) updated text: As a real-world example, please see the overview at List of Arthur episodes. There are 19 seasons. The colors for the first 7 seem to follow a basic aesthetic consistency, then things get a little random. Ideally I'd like software to say, "Pick these background colors and these text colors and you'll be compliant and aesthetic." Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for following up on this. In order to expedite this process, I would suggest that WP:TV compile a list of recommended and/or commonly used color combinations that are AAA-contrast-compliant. Provided the combinations are AAA-compliant, I see these decisions as wholly within the scope of the WikiProject, and any guidance that WP:TV can provide to the article editors is good thing. If you want to take the lead in starting that discussion within the WP:TV membership, I think that would also be a good thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
With the help of RexxS, we have a table of 13 colors here if they help: User:EvergreenFir/sandbox1. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This table might also be useful in finding a series of coordinated compliant colors - though a stripped-down version with just the plain-text AAA entries might be less confusing to distribute to editors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Musdan, the episode tables should also be AAA-color-contrast compliant, too. I believe that it is WP:TV standard formatting that the television series infoboxes and episode tables are supposed to use the same color scheme within the same article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
They should definitely be the same colour. My method of updating the colours is to cut-paste the article's contents into Notepad, user the Snook website to find a better colour, then use CTRL+H to find all occurrences of the old colour and replace it with the new colour. Then it's just a matter of cut-pasting back into the article and saving. Takes about a minute. Alex|The|Whovian 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Musdan77: At the moment, yes, this is about fixing the infobox colors (with the hope editors take care of the other locations the color is used) as that is where we have the tracking category set up. Should we fix the color problems with the infobox, the next step would be to track {{Episode list}} and the Line color field, for uses on pages that might not have the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bumping. Hey, fellas. Getting multiple editors to work on Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination would be amazing. We're already down from 1,000+ to 540 less than 500. I've worked on well over a hundred or two of these myself, whenever I get free time. Alex|The|Whovian 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to change a handful each day. Done maybe 40 at least 69 so far. I'll keep plugging away. Been focusing on cartoons (just because I like them). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying too. And then inadvertently, I come across other issues that go against our practices, so it then becomes a larger project than I intended. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We're down to 399 now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Nine hours later - 299 left. ;) The power of automated scripts. Alex|The|Whovian 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: First, great job; second, I came across these ([2][3][4]) when a search and replace was used for "white" to "black" resulting in some errors. Just a head-ups to be a more careful. Keep up the good work. I cleared about 100 a few weeks back, mainly just articles from my watchlist however. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drovethrughosts: My bad, thought I caught all of the errors. I'll keep a sterner eye out. Alex|The|Whovian 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: ooo did you make the script yourself? Willing to share (totally cool if not)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: User:AlexTheWhovian/Colour script - instructions at the bottom. (It's still buggy - i.e., it'll replace "Dean White" with "Dean black". Alex|The|Whovian 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well that's awesome. Just needs to add a default summary (because I haven't been doing that and realize too late in the few times I used it) of "WP:COLOR compliance" (or the like). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: I've personally changed the script for me to go to 'wpDiff' rather than 'wpSave', so I can check to make sure the script worked correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a better idea - I've implemented that publicly now. I've also added a line to fill in the edit summary as well. Alex|The|Whovian 05:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary I've been using is updating colors - changed season colors per [[WP:COLOR]] and [[Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Colour]]. Wanted to be sure to point to the RfC in case someone thinks this is just a crusade by a single editor and begins to argue against it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I updated the edit summary to be the one you use @EvergreenFir:. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Update

We're down to 78 pages now. We can get this by the Sept. 1 deadline easy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And we're in the clear and all done! However, it'd be a good idea to keep an eye out, maybe check it once a day, just to check in case other editors have reverted our edits or created new season pages with invalid background colours. Now, the connecting project is Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Alex|The|Whovian 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Wooboy. This will take at least another month. At least with the season articles, we had (possibly) only that one user problem on the Law and Order pages. Not bad, all things considering. @AlexTheWhovian: can you modify your script to help with this? And (in a perfect world) have the option to change the code over to your {{Episode table}} template? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also this cat: Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Holy moly, 2700+? Whew... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The category posted by Favre holding the top colours is now cleared, what remains is the line colours. The script to update the colours has been updated, and can be found here with slightly updated instructions (the code and instructions for the Infobox television season template is at the bottom in a collapsible box for future use). I'm working on updating the code to use {{Episode table}}, but that'll be a bigger ordeal, given that all table headers are different (differences in determining background colour with background/background-color/bgcolour; same with widths and style/width attribute, etc...) Alex|The|Whovian 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Alex! The use of Episode table, like I said, is a lofty dream, so if it is proving troublesome, don't worry about it! The new script for line color is more important IMO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleared out Category:Articles using Template:Infobox character with invalid colour combination. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request

A lot of the articles in Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors are merely pages where LineColor is used but not set (i.e. it's empty: | LineColor = . Can we get instances of these removed from the category? They're not applicable to what we're doing here with contrasts. Alex|The|Whovian 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate fgcolor param removal

Unless anyone objects, I was thinking we should whip up an awb script to remove the fgcolor parameter now that it's automatically determined based on the color of the background. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have other template issues to clean up as well, so I think we were waiting until the color issue was rectified, and if we get a consensus to implement the granularity changes in the discussion below. If those both happen relatively soon, we would take care of all the old params, and other changes, in one fell swoop. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Awesome. Thanks for the reply. Ping me if you need any help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely finished!

Just in time for the New Year! Four months and over 2,700+ articles later, I have completely finished clearing out Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Also in use are the informational/warning templates {{uw-color1}}, {{uw-color2}}, {{uw-color3}} and {{uw-color4}}. There is also a list of categories on my user page that automatically checks if any article has been flagged for non-compliant colours under any of those categories for anyone who desires to use it. Rejoice! Alex|The|Whovian 13:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Great work Alex! Thank you for taking the time to create the many scripts and other helpful things to help get this done. Now we should focus on writing down everything about this as we talked about so long ago above. And maybe go back through and start converting all articles to your {{Episode table}}. (I know I converted many when I went through to do the color.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television_season/Archive_3&oldid=1141714706"