Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Colour discussions

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

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

Which color scheme is more accessible?

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

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

Proposed color changes

Color comparison table

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

Track map comparison

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

Discussion

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

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

  • Support As proposer. NoahTalk 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and as the creator of the above comparison maps. Chlod (say hi!) 03:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per both above, as well as the fact that I have had similar issues in the past distinguishing the different colors, and that each new intensity example is easier to distinguish for me with the better contrast in the colors. The only possible slight hiccup would be that it might take some time for other users, readers and editors to get used to the change if it were to be put in effect, considering the original coloring scheme has been in effect for some time now. Otherwise, this seems like a good idea. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much of a hiccup since we already include the storm color key in {{storm path}}, so it shouldn't be that hard for newer users to check the new legend. Chlod (say hi!) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay, that makes sense. @Chlod: Thank you for explaining and clarifying that. I have struck corresponding portion of my comment. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – Per the proposer. Also, I've noted for years that we've had issues with some of the color contrast, in terms of just how similar they are. This is most obvious in the current SSHWS color system, which uses 5 different shades of red/yellow colors. I've found myself having difficulty distinguishing between the Cat 1 - Cat 4 colors at times, especially when similar shades are right next to each other, such as Cat 1 vs. Cat 2, and Cat 2 vs. Cat 3 (the worst two cases, IMO). I consider myself to have extremely good color sense, BTW. If I'm having trouble distinguishing between these colors, then so are many other readers out there. Also, the orange/yellow shades are too similar to be distinguished by colorblind people. So we have a serious problem here, in terms of accessibility. The current coloring system used for the Enhanced Fujita scale and the Fujita scale also use the same colors from the SSHWS system in Template:Storm colour, so they have the same issue; by making the changes to the SSHWS system alone, we'll also be fixing this issue in the Fujita and the Enhanced Fujita scale colors. The new colors proposed by Hurricane Noah are mostly similar to the current colors, but have more of a contrast and are much easier to distinguish. Thus, I support this proposal. If this is done, all of the track map images will need to be updated accordingly, and while this would be the most difficult part of implementing the color changes, it is definitely doable. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Meow, Supportstorm, FleurDeOdile, AveryTheComrade, and Cyclonebiskit:, since they are currently the main creators of new track maps for the project. The biggest hurdle in this plan is the fact that all of the old track map images will have to be updated with the new coloring scheme, but I think that this can be done. Some of the older track maps need to be redone, anyway (especially for the older SHEM and NIO seasons). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – We were discussing this change earlier and thought the pink looked good within the scale. However, looking at it in a map I do not feel like it meshes well. The changes don't look much better than the current scale. Our maps are used by many people outside of wikipedia, an I have never seen anyone directly comment on the map colors being hard to see. Not to say some had, but if this color scheme can last +15 years without any major complaints I don't feel like a change is needed. That being said if someone can point me to a previous assessment of an ACCESS issue with the color scale I'd appreciate it. I recall there being one mentioned the last time this was brought up and want to know what was discussed there. Supportstorm (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through previous comments left about accessibility issues with the color scheme, most seem to boil down to not using colored links with the scale color. Nova and AustinMan found the colors to be in compliance to WP:CONTRAST standards during the Netoholic debacle. Not sure if standards have changed or if others want to validate their previous assessments. I'm leaning more towards oppose with these changes. Supportstorm (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked the current color scheme against several color checkers and found no violations to the WCAG standard against the ocean color. For green land we have several fails with both schemes, but the land varies in color so it's hard to gauge. I have not come across of another objective way of determining if the maps comply with colorblindness with either current or proposed color schemes. It's becoming more apparent as this conversation draws out, to me, that this is mostly an argument of subjective aesthetics since both schemes are likely within colorblind standards. Supportstorm (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would like to know the impact on colour-blind people first. 🐱💬 05:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without a serious consideration of what these changes affect for colorblind people (no mention of them in this proposal beyond "it's probably hard for them"), the amount of work required to generate all new maps would be unjustified and I would oppose. Examples would be appreciated. – atomic𓅊7732 05:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    About the maps: they can be systematically regenerated using a bot since most map uploaders place generation data in the Commons summary (even though it's technically an improper use of the |code= parameter). It hasn't been tried (since something like this hasn't been proposed before), but it's definitely achievable. Chlod (say hi!) 17:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly achievable, however, I think a great deal of thought and consideration needs to be put into the proposal to go through with all that effort lest we change it only for this problem to come up over and over again in the future (as it has before). I didn't think that the requisite consideration was put into this proposal originally, but I am glad that revisions are being made as concerns arise. – atomic𓅊7732 23:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it would take years fr readers to get used to this. The most common color-blindness is red-green, which is not a concern either way. However, purple-red is also a common type of color-blindness, and it would be virtually impossible for people affected by it to distinguish whether a storm was Category 4 or 5. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat: I've updated the comparison table above (along with the filtered map images) to disprove this. Perhaps you should take a look. Chlod (say hi!) 17:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Supportstorm, Meow, Atomic7732, and Chicdat: Checked for color blindness and posted those results above. Overall, I think the new coloring scheme does a better job of providing contrast between colors, especially ones directly next to each other on the scale. NoahTalk 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #A751EF at 16:42, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like a good idea, however, the C5 color seems a bit off, and it's hard to distinguish between it and other colors in the tritanopia examples. I also find it hard to distinguish between TS and C1 in the deuteranopia and protanopia examples; the C5 color is also much too similar to the TD color in the same examples. The CS and SCS colors also seem similar, though that probably won't matter since the SCS colors are barely used, though the jump between CS/SCS and VSCS is quite wide. When fixed, I'd be happy to support. Akbermamps 14:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Changing to Support since my concerns have been addressed. Akbermamps 02:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Akbermamps: I can't update the tracks to have the same colors since I lack the technical ability to make that happen, but I updated the color schemes for the tables. I believe the new values are better than the old ones and fix the issues. The colors for the others scales outside the SSHWS would solely be for the infobox coloring purposes rather than maps. NoahTalk 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Simply put, I do not see much of any reason why we need to change the colors out of nowhere. There is plenty of contrast in the current color scheme and, if I'm gonna be completely honest here, the new colors look worse than the old ones - so why should I support a downgrade? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Out of nowhere" is incorrect: this was proposed due to ACCESS problems. Reading the initial proposal might help. Chlod (say hi!) 00:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the SSHWS colours look mostly fine, but my main concern is the NIO/SWIO/AUS/SPAC colours. I really don't like how it jumps from light blue to dark orange, and it looks extremely ugly to my eyes. I think it might be better if the VSCS/TC/C3 colour was equivalent to the SSHWS C1 colour, and the ESCS/ITC/C4 colour was equivalent to the SSHWS C3 colour, like how it is currently. SolarisPenguin (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose in spite of the fact I recognize my opinion does not matter — No. Just no. Our current color system is fine as-is and the blue to dark orange jump in non-SSHWS scales disturbs me greatly. What was the point of this? This solves nothing major - none of the changes look better than the originals in the colorblindness simulations, and quite frankly it'll look even more ugly there. This is an unneeded choice. I will remain convinced of this until a broad public survey proves me otherwise. (And it will, because weather-wise everyone loves when things get changed.) ~ AC5230 talk 21:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Interesting proposal, one that’s been well thought out as well. The logistics of it are sound; on the condition that it does make things better on those who are colorblind, and it does increase the contrast of the colors. However I do have one or two concerns. First off, this proposal causes a very non-linear progression of color as the categories advance. This is most apparent in the transition between categories 2-5; where one goes from a gold-yellow to orange to red (a very natural progression) and then immediately goes to a deep purple. A pink color may flow better and is what I would likely suggest but, as previously mentioned, it wouldn’t mesh well with track maps. Secondly, as mentioned by Solaris and others, the proposed changes also create inconsistencies in color progression for scales in foreign basins. While this is a bit less significant as it’s only used for infoboxes, it’s still something of note. With all considered, were I to vote i’d lean towards opposing on this one. Lucarius (talk) 21:31, November 17 2021 (UTC)
  • Example changed: Category 5 color switched to   #D948D9 at 23:51, November 17, 2021 (UTC). Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Is there a reason the tropical storm color has been made more similar to the tropical depression color? It is less distinguishable on the maps than before. Additionally, from an aesthetic perspective, the proposed category 5 color stands out like a sore thumb compared to the gradient of the rest of the scale. – atomic𓅊7732 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. It would be confusing to our readers as the Cat 4 color would be applied to Cat 3 and the Cat 5 color would be applied to Cat 4. Also, I disagree with the Cat 1 color for the SSHWS: Noah stated that Category 1 colors were left untouched but in the proposed color table, Cat 1 was changed from #FFFFCC" to #FFFF80", which is really similar to the current Cat 2 color. Also, the current colors were never confusing to my eyes, and without a wider survey taken, there is not enough evidence to claim the current colors being an ACCESS issue. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 00:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a bit interesting to see the polarity of this discussion: on one hand there's those like Noah, CF71, L&D, and I who have been having issues with the color contrasts (a few of which have been looking at these maps for years), and then there's other a few other editors who have never had that issue. If there's already at least four non-colorblind people affected by this, then how much more colorblind people are affected? Besides that: this is a friendly reminder that the colors are negotiable — you can freely recommend other changes you think are better, rather than simply call colors "ugly" (which is both subjective and isn't constructive to the discussion). Chlod (say hi!) 00:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting: ACCESS is a guideline. "Ugly" is not. Chlod (say hi!) 00:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure we could look up like, the 7 most scientifically accessible and color-blind-friendly colors, or pick like 7 colors at random as far apart as possible on the color wheel, but they would probably not look very good. And certainly there would be an argument to be made to use them anyway (if they were actually significantly more useful than the current colors), however clearly aesthetics are part of the consideration here, since that has not been done. Not to mention, looking similar to the previous color scale is also something that people value. – atomic𓅊7732 00:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal here isn't to be the most scientifically accessible: that defeats the purpose of creativity. The proposal is to change the colors to make it more distinguishable not only for colorblind people but also for those who aren't. I was suggesting that those leaning oppose would suggest colors that you would agree more to rather than simply call the colors "ugly" in order to have an actually constructive discussion. Chlod (say hi!) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even in the proposed version, the SCS/STS/C2 and VSCS/TC/C3 colours appear like they could be confused with each other, as they remain very similar. SolarisPenguin (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not much to say here, but it's actually a really cool idea to make the SSHWS colors more accessible to colorblind people. I won't give it a strong support as the old colors were so widespread and well known that it would probably take time to adjust everything, but I'm pretty sure we can adjust real smoothly. I really don't care whos proposal gets in as they all are pretty good at their purpose. (Edit, changed to weak support for the points I listed previously. (Edit 2, yes I know I am indisicive but im changing to oppose for basically the same reasons as Mario.)) Vortex4020 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you another user or something? This account has a total of six edits on Wikipedia and frankly the participation here doesn't make too much sense. United States Man (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I generally don't mind changing the colours here, however I'd like to see further tweaking so current readers don't get confused, as the proposed Cat 4 colours are near-identical to the current Cat 5 colours, same thing down to Cat 1. AC's version is somewhat better, but I still do have similar complaints. AveryTheComrade (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AveryTheComrade: The issue is that there are limited number of options for us to use that contrast sufficiently with either the land or the water, has a clear progression of colors, and is good for colorblind issues. This is why many colors are similar to the current ones. This is really unavoidable to be honest due to all the constraints. I think with the map kep included and maybe a note of some kind, readers would be fine. NoahTalk 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – I really don’t think this is the best idea in the long run as it is far more likely that there is public pushback against this since we have used this for over a decade and I personally see no issue with the coloring we have right now. I should mention that because of this the new colors may give the impression of stronger storms when being recalled with the old color scheme (even with a key in the image box, which is something that I really do not like especially the C3/4/5 debacle. I should also mention that some wikis revolving around such colors for TCs and tornadoes will have to undergo major changes/end up being inaccurate wiki wide and that is something I don’t want to see happen. I know this was made in good faith but I don’t think it’ll work sadly given how long it’s already been in place. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but point out that just because you personally see no issue, doesn't mean we're not supposed to push this change. Accessibility has been a longstanding goal not only by Wikipedia but by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, as declared in the WMF Board of Trustees nondiscrimination resolution. Additionally, the reason why we made the proposal here instead of WT:WPTC is because we wanted the attention of all involved weather projects — including the opinions of those in WikiProject Severe Weather among others. Chlod (say hi!) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it bothers WPSVR that much, we can simply branch off a different template for the Fujita scale, among others. Chlod (say hi!) 05:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – Like others here, I also don't think changing the color scheme that has been used for over a decade is a good idea. The colors have become commonplace all over wikipedia and it is absolutely pointless to change them now and cause confusion. United States Man (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Humans are quick to adapt to anything: even a global pandemic. There is no reason that someone won't be able to adapt to simple color changes on a map with the legend provided to them. MOS:ACCESS has had over a thousand revisions since 2010, and newer guidelines have been made successively throughout the years. WPTC (and in proxy, WPWX) has simply failed to meet up to those expectations, which is why we're trying to change that before this becomes even more of a long-term pain in the ass that we need to drag around for the next 10, 20, 30 years. Wikipedia has always been about changing something if it seems wrong: that's what WP:BOLD is all about, so I really don't see anything policy-based or guideline-based (or at the very least, "wiki-improving") about "has been used for over a decade" Chlod (say hi!) 05:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I love when I get so-called “policy” thrown at me. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Wikipedia:Be bold are Wikipedia guidelines, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is a globally-agreed and recognized reference for accessibility, and foundation:Resolution:Nondiscrimination is a WMF Board of Trustees resolution. They have page notices at the top to clearly illustrate these, but perhaps you missed that. Chlod (say hi!) 06:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I never actually mentioned this being a policy-based change, but rather a guideline-based one. Perhaps you also misread my message? Chlod (say hi!) 06:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you act in such a manner as you are now, it really makes you look bad. United States Man (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to point out possible oversights, since I feel like you're missing the point of the proposal, and that's really the last thing that I would want to happen since you wouldn't be able to make an informed decision. Chlod (say hi!) 06:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not missing anything. I’ve been here for 10 years. You, not even 2 yet. I’ve seen this same discussion before and I didn’t support it then and still don’t now. That’s my opinion on it. I don’t believe the purple is a good idea, and I don’t think using some of those other funky colors will actually make anything better and will probably make it worse. United States Man (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess there's not much I can do if it doesn't float your boat. Still was worth a shot. Chlod (say hi!) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was only pointing out that I’ve been here long enough to have seen this before and know that I don’t support it. It has nothing to do with me being here longer, but go ahead and make another smart comment. United States Man (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AC's Idea

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

LGS's color scheme

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

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

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

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

Base map

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

Do we have any other options for a base map? Jason Rees (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's commons:File:BlankMap-World-Equirectangular.svg, which is in the public domain and probably not too hard to recolour. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the idea of us colouring in the map as I doubt we would not be able to agree on the colours and it would probably count as original research, after all what colour the ocean or a certain point in Africa is? Jason Rees (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to revisit this, since some colors suggested further on do collide with the Blue Marble background. Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 15:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this subsection, I think we are not addressing the elephant in the room. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(very late reply to @Jason Rees:) Perhaps I should have been clearer there; I meant that we pick one colour for land and another for sea. With only two colours on the base map, we would have a much larger pool of colours to choose from for the intensity scale. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redux: New RfC (February 2022)

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

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


Which color scheme is more accessible?

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

Proposed colors

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

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

Comparison images

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

Standard vision

Protanopic (red blind)

Deuteranopic (green blind)

Tritanopic (blue blind)

Feedback on the proposed scheme

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

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

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

I never noticed that there was a color difference between disturbance and depression. Can I see what those colors might look like? In the map for Ivan (listed above), the disturbance and TD colors look the same. I'm only wondering based on the background that we use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we ever actually had differing colors for tropical depressions and disturbances, since the difference between the two was always denoted by a shape change (triangle for post-trop, circles for tropical depressions and stronger). Chlod (say hi!) 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod and Hurricanehink: IIRC The color for disturbance was slightly lighter than tropical depression, almost to the point of being unnoticable. I think a change may be needed for infoboxes (to make it more noticeable), but not for the maps. NoahTalk 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just color dropped from Harvey's map, and both points for disturbance and depression are  #5ebaff. It's more the matter that this color represents winds below 34 knots, regardless of whether it's a TC, EC, disturbance etc. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, the proposal parts for disturbance/PTC and ET are just for infoboxes since there are differences between colors there. NoahTalk 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the changes also apply to maps? It might be confusing to use two different color schemes for maps and templates. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: We already have two different schemes in that regard. ET is gray in infoboxes but colored on maps w/ triangles. PT is a slightly lighter blue in infoboxes currently but same color as TD on maps. If we would want to adopt the regular scheme for ET, it would require some additional changes for templates since they currently do not differentiate between intensity for ET other than <64 kn and ≥64 kn. I would be okay with making disturbance a different color from TD to give a bit more distinction since it's not a cyclone during those stages. NoahTalk 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like for all the colors to match up with the Infoboxes. Otherwise, I like and support the proposed changes. One slight note - should we rank the Categories using the same color scheme, such as the Regional Snowfall Index, the Enhanced Fujita scale, etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: If we gave tornadoes a separate color scheme, that would require changing tens of thousands of entries in tables. So, I'd be opposed to that unless the task could be automated. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Asartea's intention was for us to review the new colors in User:Asartea/sandbox, not reintroduce a rehashed version of the previous color scheme (which still has significant issues with links on colored backgrounds). In such a case, the proposed scheme would be (from TD to C5):        .
In any case, this is probably a step in the wrong direction. I'm opposed to using the above colors proposed above for infoboxes. In fact, it would be even more of an ACCESS violation to use the above since   purple has an even lower contrast rate with links (2.51) compared to the   previous Category 5 color (2.88). Chlod (say hi!) 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we simply step around this issue by formatting templates so that linked text is not placed against colored backgrounds? Adding contrast with links on top of other accessibility requirements is just making this more of a headache. The only place I know where linked text regularly appears on a background using these colors is the top of the storm infobox. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found a solution to both problems and will be adding it in shortly. NoahTalk 02:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod, Hurricanehink, and TornadoLGS: I removed the ET color and I modified all the others and believe them to be both colorblind compliant, AA compliant, and maintains a scaling color scheme. Thoughts? NoahTalk 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tested out these colors in photoshop using a screenshot of the sample map given above. When actually put to a map, the colors don't have good contrast, especially between category 4 and category 5. The main issue, I think, is that it leans too heavily on pastels. I also think the scaling breaks down for cat 4 and 5. Ideally, it should be intuitive that, e.g. the category 5 color represents a greater intensity than the category 4 color without the viewer even needing to look at the legend (honestly that is one strength of the current colors). Since the color scheme I proposed earlier never got any support, I would say AC's does the best job of that. I like LightandDark2000's idea, though, of not putting links in colored parts of templates, though.TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000 and TornadoLGS: I listed both options above. I readded the previous version to show what we have. Removing the links would definitely lift a large burden off of us in determining colors. NoahTalk 03:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the color scheme in Astartea's sandbox; Strongly Support AC/Noah's New Color Proposal; Neutral on the current proposal (as of this writing), probably tilt oppose on that one. I agree that the current coloring system can use some changes, even if we don't agree on the exact system to go by. My favorite option so far is the one proposed by AC & Noah. The colors there are easily distinguishable (and definitely distinguishable for colorblind individuals), have a nice color progression, and is similar to the current coloring system. While I understand the WP:ACCESS concerns behind Astartea's proposal, those colors are inconsistent (no clear progression in shading and/or hue), not really aesthetically pleasant, and the lighter hues make it even harder to distinguish the colors. Thus, that system is a no-go for me. While the current proposal is better, I don't like how all of the shades have been lightened in color for a number of reasons. While it does have a clear progression, the lighter shades do make some of the colors appear closer to each other, and the new coloring system just doesn't seem to fit together as well - it seems a little jarring. I do believe that the current coloring system could use some improvements, but I don't believe that the latest proposal is the best possible version. And I will not back a coloring scheme unless I will be comfortable seeing the said system implemented on all of our weather articles and storm maps - as there are thousands of articles and track map images using these colors, we have to get it right the first time. These same colors are used for the tornado intensity scaling (F and EF scales) and winter storms (RSI). So we need a single, unified system. As for those Weather project users who oppose changing the colors just because they don't like the idea, or they feel that redoing all of the maps would be too much of an issue, I have this to say: Your personal opinions do not override project policy. As for the task of redoing the maps, Chlod has discussed ways to redo the maps by bots in a number of discussions off-wiki - all we need is for the track map generator data to be present on the images' Commons pages to do that. A bot can be written to automatically redo the track maps. So changing the colors is doable. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether or not the coloring system gets changed, I propose removing the links entirely from the colored part of the infobox. While it's nice to have the links there, I don't think they're necessary. We could link them elsewhere, or have those terms explained elsewhere in the articles using the templates. Given our difficulties in agreeing on a new coloring system, if the links are that much of an WP:ACCESS problem, then let's just remove the links entirely. Then, we can focus on whether or not to change the color system (and which new system we should use) without having to worry about bending over backwards just to accommodate the links. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LightandDark2000: This has already been done with {{infobox weather event}}, along with even more fixes that take into consideration much of ACCESS (besides the warnings section for now, because I was not involved in its creation). When we'll be able to transition to this improved infobox style, however, I have no clue. As for replacing the current infoboxes and templates, I suggest not counting on it, since those boxes are too much of a template hellhole to mess with and not break anything. Chlod (say hi!) 04:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jason Rees: There are no "5 seperate infoboxes", there is only one (as looking at the documentation of {{infobox weather event}} would have already shown you). Each template is not a new infobox. The reason why it might appear that way is because each template provides a new scale to the box. This easily deals with the fact that we have one infobox with a large amount of parameters (e.g. in {{infobox tropical cyclone current}}, where there is category, AUScategory, JMAtype, JMAcategory, IMDtype, IMDcategory, MFRtype, and MFRcategory) with no further support for other agencies. Additionally, the order of what warning center can easily be changed by simply changing the order of the templates, unlike our existing infoboxes which do not provide this functionality and is instead fixed to one specific order. In case you want to show the precedence of one specific agency, you can just transclude the correct (or additional) agenc(y/ies), since the new infobox is based on issuing agencies, not specific sections of the world. With Wikidata, I can even compress the box to no longer require any parameters. WikiProject Anime and manga has had this modular template construction style since at least 2005, and it certainly also fits well with the massively-decentralized storm information centers we have around the world. Chlod (say hi!) 14:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing per WP:SNOW: consensus exists to remove links from the colored region of weather infoboxes and templates. NoahTalk 21:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Formal discussion (RfC)

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

  • Support as proposer. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support – Per the proposer. This needs to happen. We've already agreed to remove the links from the color bar sections of the various infoboxes we use for the storms and tornadoes, and now, we need to finish the rest of the work. The current colors have accessibility issues. Some of the colors are difficult to tell apart for readers with normal vision, like me and Noah, and the current color scheme uses multiple colors that have shades too similar to each other for colorblind or disabled readers to tell apart. For the SSHWS scale (the main coloring system used, and the one used for the NATL and EPAC hurricane basins, and the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita scale for tornado articles), the Cat 1–4 colors are simply too close too each other, especially for Cat 1 vs. Cat 2, and Cat 2 vs. Cat 3, where the color contrasting is the worst. I have difficulty telling apart the Cat 1–4 colors at times, especially when the most similar shades are right next to each other (mostly in the cases I outlined earlier). Oftentimes, I find myself having to open up the track map images to their full resolutions just to differentiate some of the specific track points, and even then, I still have issues in some cases. And I consider myself to have very good color vision. If I'm struggling with differentiating the colors with the current system, then a whole multitude of other readers have this issue as well, especially our users with colorblindness or other vision issues. We don't have any of these issues with the new, proposed coloring system. Not only are the new colors much easier to differentiate for people with normal color vision (myself included), but they're also much easier to differentiate for colorblind individuals, as illustrated in the charts and the images above. Additionally, the newer coloring system is largely similar to the current system (so there's that element of familiarity), and the color progression feels natural and easy to follow, making the newer system an excellent solution. As such, I believe that we should replace the current coloring system with the newer one proposed by Noah and AC. For those people who are opposed to changing the current coloring system just because you favor the old system or think that no changes are needed, let me remind you of a couple of things: 1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the changes shouldn't go forward, and 2) Accessibility matters. On the issue of replacing the track maps, Chlod has already proposed a way of dealing with this problem, by coding a bot account to automatically generate new track maps with the new coloring system. This can be done on any track map for which the track map generator data, and the vast majority of track map images do have the track map generator data displayed on Commons. The others can be manually updated. On the issue of people being used to the old system, I would like to repeat what Chlod said earlier, which is that humans can and do adapt to changes. This is another change that we'll simply have to adapt to. The new coloring system is similar to the old one, so it shouldn't be too jarring for those used to the older system, but at the same time, it makes the colors much easier to differentiate and also more accessible to our colorblind readers, which needs to happen. Also, WP:ACCESS is a site-wide Wikipedia policy. Familiarity (or status quo) is not. All things considered, I think this is a good proposal and one that we should implement. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At this point, I don't think further discussing the color scheme will get us far. While I've voiced my own ideas for colors, I think anything beyond what I've already said would be nitpicking. The proposed colors improve contrast for both normal-sighted and colorblind individuals. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Tom94022 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the proposed colors again? 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This proposal leaves out the bad part of the earlier proposal and keeps the good. 🐔dat (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I like it, and it makes sense to change the colors (which were picked decades ago without accessibility concerns). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I still do not feel like a color change is still warranted given the same reasoning I had in the original RfC. The contrast in maps against the blue ocean are strong for the original scheme, land is still hit or miss (that's going to be the case for any proposed scheme), and the contrast between different category colors are close to where I personally see a good compromise between aesthetics and accessibility residing. I do not mind the proposed scheme, however, strongly encourage further experimenting with the Severe TS and C1 colors. They are not great. Supportstorm (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox & Template colors

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to implement the proposed changes to the various colour schemes. No substantive opposition was put forward. firefly ( t · c ) 18:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Proposed colors

SSHWS colors

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

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

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

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

Example

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

Images comparing infobox and timeline status colors
Blue Blindness


Green Blindness


Red Blindness


Proposed timeline background change

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

Examples of proposed change
Images of proposed change
Regular vision

Red blind

Green blind

Green blind

Current timelines
Images of current timelines
Blue Blindness

Green Blindness

Red Blindness

Discussion

  • Support as proposer. NoahTalk 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Also working on a fix for the current MOS:ACCESS failure for the timeline experienced due to the TS color. NoahTalk 15:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sennecaster, LightandDark2000, TornadoLGS, CycloneFootball71, Chicdat, Tom94022, Hurricanehink, and Supportstorm: Pinging everyone who participated in the recently closed RfC discussion since it has been brought to my attention that the scope may have been misleading and some may have thought it was just maps and others may have thought it was for everything. The goal was to keep the scales consistent between maps and the on-wiki templates. I am sorry if anyone was confused. The closed RfC above will only apply to the maps as it was pointed out to me that I didn't specifically mention anything else. NoahTalk 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a sec. You're saying we're going ahead with changing colors in the maps but not the templates? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TornadoLGS: The maps aren't getting changed right now as a bot has to be coded for that. We would then have to decide a timeline for implementing them once the bot is ready. I was told off-wiki that since templates and other scales were not explicitly mentioned in the original proposal that the consensus for that RfC can't apply to them. Even if it was implied that everything was going to be changed to match up, the consensus only applies to the maps. NoahTalk 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I figured it was assumed that we wouldn't change one without the other. I think WP:NOTBURO applies in this case. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would agree with you, but there are others who may not. I did discover another MOS:ACCESS issue that affects every season article and timeline article as a result of this. That issue is also being considered here and would simply require AWB to implement. This issue would affect hundreds of articles. Keep in mind the timeline background would be altered for all weather articles as well. NoahTalk 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, one thing I've also realized, since we're talking about keeping maps and templates consistent, is that we've started incorporating maps into annual tornado articles, so far only at Tornadoes of 2021 and Tornadoes of 2022. They currently use the NWS color scheme, or something close to it, but we should include those in this color scheme as well. The may be access issues between the EF1 and EF3 colors [4]. Pinging @Supportstorm: since they did both of these maps. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize my wording above is ambiguous. I mean we should use the new color scheme for the tornado maps. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chose the colors since they look well on the map. Personally don't see an issue with the EF1 and EF3 colors, but I'm absolutely done discussing project color changes. I'll change it to whatever is agreed upon. Supportstorm (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support All the proposed changes, per my reasoning in the earlier RfC above. Accessibility is important, and the newer coloring system would clearly work better than the current one. We've already agreed to implement the color changes; this just confirms the color changes in the remaining templates that utilize our storm colors. As for the Timeline background color, accessibility also needs to apply there as well, and the proposed light background color (very light grey) is both more accessible and aesthetically pleasant. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To make my position clear. I agree with keeping keeping tornado colors the same as hurricane colors because 1) It saves the work of reworking thousands of entries in tornado tables and 2) the NWS colors have access issues which I brought up above. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline for implementation

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

wptc-track will definitely need some changing (namely scales.c) for track map changes. According to some preliminary categorization I've done a few months back, 466 existing images will require manual regeneration, or at least require a human on the helm to see if the track map being generated is correct and represents the actual cyclone (based on other data on the {{WPTC track map}} template). 3,051 images have track data embedded, so regeneration wouldn't be hard and would be close to accurate. 1,846 images have command execution input, which can be a bit unreliable if the original data has been deleted/changed, but if particularly problematic, can just be verified by humans (and wouldn't take that long for the humans to scan).
Of course, the hard part is actually making the bot that will do all this work. Pinging PurpleLights, who I know has some development experience and is still highly active in the project. Chlod (say hi!) 04:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the color changes have been implemented in the templates, I think that the timeline changes should be implemented, ASAP. This can be done via AutoWikiBrowswer. As for the track map images, they have to be redone, but the vast majority of them can probably be automatically recreated by a bot, since most of them have their track data available on their Commons page. The rest can be manually recreated. We need a new bot to do this, and it's going to take some time, but hopefully, we can get all of the track maps redone within a few months of the bot being set up. I think this summer to the start of next winter is a reasonable time frame when it comes to when to expect this task to be completed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

  • Oppose as we would be reintroducing WP:ACCESS issues for the timeline and removing the new scheme for maps which fixes the issues. We have finely tuned this scheme against the map and the colors against each other to have a scale that progresses naturally and is accessible to all. The new scale clearly states colors (see template for scale in articles) and yes, confusion is likely at first, but that will happen with any change. It takes time for people to get used to a change and that isn't a reason to avoid the change. NoahTalk 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the color scale is not good at all. All it did was make it look even more out of style and purple just does not work at all. This needs to be redrawn from the ground up as other proposals for new colors seem to have been deliberately left out and instead set on one that did not get enough comments on it. Why not just slightly modify the original colors to comply but still retain its faithfulness? Plus, it looks awful on the tornadoes part, especially the higher-end ones. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't slightly modify all the colors slightly to improve contrast. There isn't much room to go with very similar colors. NWS actually uses purple for EF5, red for EF4, and orange for EF3. This is more inline with what they have. The problem is we have tried many different colors and we have a limited range that works for the maps. People who opposed the first time supported because they felt it was the best option and we had exhausted alternative schemes. I honestly think this is the best option we have. NoahTalk 03:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why? Why can’t you give it a chance? We don’t have to be the same as the NWS. It also doesn’t serve to help that Sam’s TCR was released today with no upgrade to C5 - and now this color change is gonna have a lot of people assuming wrongly that it was upped to C5 because the old C5 color was made into the new C4 color. Ditto with Ida. I don’t think you want that on your conscious right? Also WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn’t really apply here, since changing the status quo that the entire community has gotten used to even before Twitter was invented is now changed and your probably gonna end up causing a lot of confusion now with this. Plus, some have even said the original colors didn’t really have an WP:ACCESS issue. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • We gave it a chance back in November and it ended in a no-consensus track wreck as a result. Discussion fizzled out on it. People could have proposed any alternative back then but they didn't. I tried to get input this time around as a result of the shortcomings of the prior discussion, but nobody checks project pages apparently and I can't ping everyone as it would be canvassing. That's not really my fault. As I have said before, any change will lead to confusion until people get used to it. It just takes time to get over. The ACCESS thing people were referring to was contrast between the map and the colors, which is what got tested way back when. The contrast between the colors themselves was not tested. NoahTalk 10:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the changes, and I'm not too happy to be fair. Personally I find the new colour scheme worse than the old - my eyes hurt when I look at the new one - and I would have preferred that the old one be kept. But this isn't a policy-based reason to oppose the new scheme, so I have no standing to complain, I suppose, especially as I have normal vision; MOS:ACCESS takes precedence over WP:IDONTLIKEIT, after all. JavaHurricane 03:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on the changes are as follows: simply put my preference is with the old color scheme. This new change has a great purpose, one I’m all for and it is actually well-thought out in a lot of areas (props to AC, who’s actually done well in what he’s set out to do despite the criticisms). My biggest issue lies with the colors themselves. They simply don’t make too much sense to me from a progression standpoint, notably in Categories 3–5. There have also been complaints from others about Categories 1–2. Another thing is execution; the change was sudden and not announced very well. It also could’ve included some (further) thought on the creation of something to allow for those in opposition to have a choice prior to the change. Those concerns aside though, similarly to what Java mentioned, the scheme does accomplish it’s original purpose of being more accessible and I can acknowledge that as a reason against opposing policy-wise. Lucarius ~ 03:59, March 19 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose reverting the changes, per the reasons given by Noah. This subject was already discussed in about 3 successive RfCs for the past few months in the sections above, and the relevant WikiProjects were literally notified of the ongoing RfC with banners on their pages. We can't wait forever, and it's not our fault more people weren't paying attention. Also, reversing the changes would reintroduce the old problems we were dealing with. And discussing these issues again really isn't going to produce a different outcome; all we'll get is a similar result, if not a deadlock. I think that retreading this issue would be very counterproductive and a waste of time, so I don't think we should do this. Anyway, it takes time for people to get used to change. And you can't please everyone. This is another one of those cases. While not everyone is pleased with the colors, they're clearly an improvement over the previous system, in terms of accessibility. And we came to a consensus in the said discussions. It's time to implement the results and move on. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it counterproductive to revisit and come up with a better solution? This feels like you’re trying to exclude those who opposed it and want to go back and have a constructive conversation instead of rushing through changes that many are not gonna be proud of. I really think we need to go back and revisit this because it obviously was not carried through properly. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Support on revisiting this in my view. I understand the use of the Access request and complaints made about the original scale, so alas I understand the need to change it. What I don't understand is the particular scale we changed to. I liked the fact that the previous scale had a solid, strong gradient that made sense- and you could tell that higher up the gradient meant a stronger hurricane. Whereas, the implemented scale uses a bright pinkish/purple for C5, which doesn't make sense and the color implemented does not blend well with the red now being used for C4. Additionally, the fact that C5, C4, and C3 colors were knocked down the scale one could be seen as confusing to viewers. Essentially, one of two things needs to happen in my view:

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

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

  • Support for revisiting the new scale. While changing the scales to comply with WP:ACCESS is a good idea, I believe it has been executed poorly (not AC's fault, by the way). My main problem is that the color progression in the new scale is really odd, especially from category 3 to 5. The old Category 4 color is now the Category 3 color, and the old Category 5 color is the new Category 4 color, and this is likely to lead to confusion. I've also seen people who have said that the Category 1 and Category 2 colors remain to similar. It may be better to have a scale with similar progression to the old one, however slightly more exaggerated differences between categories. However, that's just my opinion. SolarisPenguin (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This I can support. But apparently it “can’t work”, which I think it can. It also makes long-trackers like Irma look way more intense then it is in certain areas. Longtime trackers who are used to the old scale but don’t edit here are going to get very confused. I really think we should just go back to the old scale but fix the root of the problem which is the C1/2 colors, not the entire scale. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT: @DaneH20, SolarisPenguin, and HurricaneEdgar: The contrast between colors has to be enough that they can be distinguished on small dots on a map. Slight adjustments didn't make all that much of a difference when I tested which is why we went with larger adjustments. As I have said before, confusion is likely to be only temporary. Confusion is likely to occur with any change. With all changes, any confusion passes with time as people get used to the changes. That's why we include map keys. As for color progression, it is about as natural as we can get. Dark red is out due to visibility on the map and pink is a no-go for the same reason... that leaves us with purple, which has some blue tint. Even the NWS uses something similar for the tornadoes: Orange for EF3, red for EF4, and purple for EF5. Additionally, we have the timeline accessibility issue to contend with. This new scale is in-line with the background change that fixes the TS color issue for red colorblindness (TS color shows up as gray and it was on a gray background). Our current scale and any minor adjustments does not and will not be appropriate for the background. Our scale needs to be able to be on a different shade of timeline background and have sufficient contrast on the maps. I think we have minimal room for adjustment here as a result. NoahTalk 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah: My main problem with this proposal is how the category colors have been shifted down, and also the large jump between C4 and C5. While the confusion is temporary on WP, it might affect other services that use the now-old versions of WP tracks (Like the JTWC has done in the past). I'm all for changing the colors for ACCESS, however I believe it could've been executed better. C1 and C2, and potentially C3 and C4 are also too similar, while C2 and C3, and C4 and C5 are too different, jumping from light yellow -> orange and red -> purple. I think the C1 and C2 colors are fine, but the C3, C4 and C5 colors should be shifted slightly closer to C2, although not by a significant margin. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Purple is awful which is why it must be changed. I don’t get why you don’t want to give it a chance and instead are refusing to even do so. The previous colors appeared perfectly fine to me and already I am seeing backlash on WxTwx. The contrasts were perfectly fine as well and all this did was make it even worse. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioProtIV: If you want a better solution, the only good option is to ditch the background and go with a political map rather than a terrain one. That will open up many more color possibilities and alleviate the pressure for conforming the scale. The one proposed off wiki doesn’t have enough contrast for small dots. NoahTalk 15:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Political maps are just as awful and makes the map itself look very child-ish. Blue Marble background is the better one for all of them. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SolarisPenguin said this new color is confusion in the reader, I would like to kept the old color in the template. HurricaneEdgar 04:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically to you, this is an all-or-nothing change. People don't want to change one without changing the other so either we change everything to a new scheme or we change nothing at all. Consistency between maps and templates is a requirement for almost everyone here. We really tried to make the best possible scale given the obstacles we had to tackle. If we had a better alternative, it likely would have been proposed by this point and adopted. NoahTalk 10:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people have an issue with the current C5 color, and while I get the concerns, there's really no alternative color that can be used for C5. A darker red such as   is the logical progression, however it's too close to land color. A lighter red will become too close to the C4 color, and a dark purple will become too close to the sea color. If purple can't be used, then the background map itself has to change to prevent colors becoming too similar to colorblind people. I would also like to note that the previous colors are not "perfectly fine", imagine trying to discern what color means which in the tiny space this file takes up in an article. Akbermamps 14:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the goal was consistency, then can't the track map colors be vibrant and then have a quantitative value be used to brighten the colors for infoboxes (i.e. HSL-wise, increase lightness and decrease saturation)? Seems better than having rainbow barf on season effects tables, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that if we just use the same hue. Chlod (say hi!) 14:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I applaud the thought and cooperation that those involved put into this – huzzah! As some fine-tuning will likely be done, I would like to pass along two observation: the C1 color is a bit difficult to distinguish against the new background shading, and the C5 color makes the hyperlink text difficult to read. I understand and appreciate the complexities involved in developing a workable color scheme, and again say thank you for your work. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drdpw I removed hyperlinks from info boxes for scales per consensus above as it doesn’t comply with any scale we have had. NoahTalk 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple project members have raised the issue in off-wiki communication that implementing the color changes to track maps would also affect other language Wikipedias and force color changes there even though they did not discuss it and which may have different policies on WP:ACCESS etc. This has been presented as a roadblock, but there is a compromise. I think a way around this would be to have bots create new files, instead of updating existing track maps. That way other Wikipedias could implement color changes, or choose not to, at their own pace. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This feels lke we are opening Pandoras Box, which is why I have tried to avoid commenting for now. However, if the track maps are being redone then they should all include data from the RSMC rather than the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a better solution that changing the Cat 4 and 5 colors to red and purple. Oppose the introduction of the purple color. The best solution was to keep something that isn’t broken. Oh but that would offend somebody. United States Man (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose revoking the changes. The previous discussion sought out to reach consensus on making colors that are more color blind compliant. That consensus was achieved, which is not an easy feat given how many previous discussions there have been on this topic. Do I think there's some combination of colors out in the world that would look and work better than what was proposed here? Yeah, probably. But as it stands, these new colors fulfill the goal that was set and generally match the progression that other websites use as well. "I don't like it" is not a valid excuse in this discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose undoing the color change even if the new colors weren’t ideal, because I believe in inclusivity and @United States Man: WP:ACCESS can’t be ignored just because “I don’t like it”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose reverting the changes per reasons given by Noah, Jasper Deng, L&D2000, and TropicalAnalystwx2013. The original grounds for changing the color scheme was to make it more accessible for users, and to help people with colorblindness and other vision issues differentiate the different colors with higher contrast. Many editors, (myself included) have mentioned how the original colors were difficult to see and tell apart among other things, and how the shades are too close to one another to tell apart for those with colorblindness and other troubles with sight. Per the words of @LightandDark2000: from a previous discussion, "For those people who are opposed to changing the current coloring system just because you favor the old system or think that no changes are needed, let me remind you of a couple of things: 1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the changes shouldn't go forward, and 2) Accessibility matters." And also "humans can and do adapt to changes. This is another change that we'll simply have to adapt to. The new coloring system is similar to the old one, so it shouldn't be too jarring for those used to the older system, but at the same time, it makes the colors much easier to differentiate and also more accessible to our colorblind readers, which needs to happen. Also, WP:ACCESS is a site-wide Wikipedia policy. Familiarity (or status quo) is not." I think what LightandDark said here basically sums up why it is futile to try and change back to our old coloring scheme, we are trying to accomodate all of our readers and editors,and that is by making the maps easier to see. I understand that some don't like the coloring scheme, but trying to change it back completely is frankly a bit selfish in the broad scheme of things. I am sure that we will eventually find better colors, but for now, the new ones suffice. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Mobius Gerig: Do you have any thoughts on the newest proposal below? NoahTalk 10:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to make some minor changes than to just basically start from scratch. Plus, the newer one looks good. Mobius Gerig (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

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

The one issue with that color scale is, under deuteranopia, there is hardly any contrast between the severe tropical storm and category 2 colors. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
STS is not even really used at all on the track maps except for Infobox headers so that’s already taken care of. And rarely do the JMA screw up so bad as to have STS while JTWC has C2. And vice versa. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new scale also has the same problem, as STS and C2 are quite similar as well. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While this is similar to the color scale I proposed, [5] was my actual proposal. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out the proposals here (including one off-wiki) and the colors are still too close to each other. (solar's proposal: [6], [7]), (mario's proposal: [8], [9]), (off-wiki proposal: [10]). The only way to create enough contrast between the colors is to, say, shift C4 to C3, etc. I would also like to note that the C1 and TS colors we're currently using are still too close to each other, so maybe that can be fixed here. Akbermamps 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting colors is not a good idea at all. It creates confusion just like the C3/4 colors were made the old C4/5 colors. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a huge issue. It will take getting used to, but that's true of any change. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't believe this is avoidable. I originally tried to minorly alter the original colors such as Solaris has done above and it just didn't have enough contrast between colors. The problem is a limited range of color can only have so much contrast between the various shades. That's why I shifted C5 down to C4 and C4 down to C3. It cuts down on the number of shades of yellow/orange between TS color and the strong orange (former C4 one) color to 2 from 3. It's easier to show contrast between two shades of yellow/orange than it is three, and even more so if it were to have been four shades (a hypothetical fourth shade). More colors also increases the number of shades you can have for a scale. I realize you and some others don't like shifting colors and the introduction of purple, but these changes are actually more thought out than you have given us credit for. During the first RfC way back in November, I started off with a pretty poor scheme and tried to implement feedback I got from everyone in order to improve it. I discussed with some people what their thoughts were on a potential scale and took that into consideration as well. AC's scale, which was somewhat different from my final proposal there, got a decent amount of good feedback, so I decided to take it up for the new proposal. I yet again asked for feedback on the proposal during the second RfC, however, people felt it was fine and likely the best outcome we could hope for given all the hours we had spent discussing and formulating color schemes. We had to contend with having enough contrast between colors and the track map background, fixing the timeline background issue for the TS color, and having enough contrast between the colors themselves. I realize you don't like the scale we came up with, but it does accomplish everything it set out to do. NoahTalk 12:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get that but you are still opening Pandora’s box to a lot of confusion and misinformation by simply resorting to shifting colors, especially for borderline C4/5 storms like Sam and Jose, as well as EF4/5 tornadoes. I don’t think you want that to happen so the current color scheme needs to be reworked to fix that issue. It’s better to just look at the other proposals. Also FYI, I recall reading from someone saying the old scale didn’t really have any issues and was mostly compliant. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would be confusion over any change, really, but it will be temporary. I showed the new colors to some non-Wikipedians (including one who does graphic design) who thought they looked fine. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not misinformation as we are not making anything factually incorrect. While it is leading to some confusion, that's only a temporary issue as people will adapt and become used to the scale with time. I have looked at the other proposals brought up and they don't solve the problem of having enough contrast between colors and being compatible with a new timeline background color. You have to realize with these alt proposals that have come up thus far is either they contrast enough against the timeline background and don't have enough contrast between colors or they contrast enough between colors and don't contrast enough against the timeline background. In regards to the compliancy, that was ACCESS compliance between the colors and the ocean background of the map, not between the colors themselves. NoahTalk 22:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don’t seem to realize this is causing more people to mistake borderline storms and I don’t see how this is a temporary issue as this will mess up a lot of people’s perceptions of higher end storms. You may not think it’s misinformation but it’s damn near close when the old scale (which was in use for over a decade and in the minds of a lot of people) suddenly gets replaced with a new one that merry shifted colors down a scale and made C4 look like it’s actually C5. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: You’ve made this “misinformation” and “confusion” claim numerous times without any, actual, evidence that our readers are actually getting this confused. You’re not defeating the substance of Noah’s argument by saying people will change their perception of higher-end storms, since is bound to happen with any color scheme.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other complaints I have heard off-wiki for the old scale is that orange for EF4/C4 seemed like it insinuated they were a moderate, common event rather than a strong one. They applauded the new scale for making the actual moderate look moderate. They liked seeing C4 be red and C5 as purple because it insinuates severe and very severe. Heck, even covid maps for state gov'ts (California and Ohio I know did this) used yellow, orange, red, purple as the progression. You act as if this came out of nowhere, however, it didn't. The adjustment is likely easier than you think considering people are used to seeing these covid maps showing purple as the next color after red. The main argument against including purple in the scale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This shift could actually be positive for us as it puts colors to the intensities where they match up in this day and age since purple really is the new red across the world. Yes, the old scale was in use for a decade. You made it quite clear in November you wouldn't support any change just because the old scale had been in use for such a long time. A similar thing would be saying racism is okay because it has been done for such a long time in the past. Just because it has been done for a long time doesn't mean it was right for us to have done to begin with. Hurricanehink even said that the colors a decade or so ago were likely picked out without accessibility concerns in mind. If something is displayed to be wrong and treat a group of people unfairly, it is our duty and obligation to fix that issue, making sacrifices if we need to. WP:ACCESS > aesthetics.... It's literally that simple. With these new guidelines (ones that were voted on) likely coming into effect soon, we could get into serious trouble if we take actions either as individuals or as a project that promote discrimination against certain groups of people, such as reverting to a scale that does not support the color blind. Again, I get you and others don't like the idea of shifting colors and using purple, but trying to toss everything out just to get the old scale back is very selfish and dishonorable. I didn't pursue this just for the hell of it. Someone has to fight for the color blind because we don't have very many, if any, with a full color blindness and it is quite clear that a decent chunk of this project just doesn't care. It makes me sick to see people put their own preferences over a group that has a disability. I stand here asking you and others to keep the changes enacted for the sake of the color blind as this fixes serious issues we have with WP:ACCESS. NoahTalk 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But why are you refusing to allow other proposals to be discussed such as those discussed off-wiki? Also how could we get into “serious trouble” if nothing happened regarding the old scale 'which was used for over a decade? The fact that @SolarisPenguin:’s and others proposals was thrown out because “it doesn’t meet all of the criteria/fails 1 out of the rest is quite honestly stupid. Also the argument with purple is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. It’s actually a bad color that goes against infoboxes and several people off-wiki have brought up concerns over it. Also, I and others are very aware of the colorblind community and that’s why we took to make proposals that fixed the issue at hand while not straying far from the original scale. Hell, even Supportstorm said the only issue with the old scale was the C2/3 transition, so it would seem far better to fix that while leaving the rest of the scale intact. So I’m asking, please consider those other proposals too as at this point it feels very immature to brush them off just because it doesn’t meet 100% of criteria (it should at least meet 75% or more). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not seen where Akbermamps and I have pointed out either A. it does not go well with a new timeline background color or B. it doesn't have enough contrast on the maps? We are allowing discussion of those proposals, but pointing out where they don't measure up to what we need. Both of these are requirements for any new scale. It's not stupid that it was thrown out because it doesn't meet all of the criteria. For example, either something is AA or it isn't. There isn't an "Oh... it meets 90% so it's fine for AA". It's a strict cutoff with no exceptions for a reason. Either we are accessible as possible or if we go with something that fixes 75% of the issues, we are discriminating against people with a disability in order to preserve the old scale. People have brought up both C1/C2 and C2/C3 as confusion areas, which is a large chunk of the scale. Purple is a bad color? It still meets AA on both normal black text and bolded black text. We have consensus above to remove links from every colored region of infoboxes and templates, so I don't see what the issue is here. In terms of getting into trouble, I have no clue, but big brother is likely going to be swinging around its battleaxe to enforce the new guidelines and stop any practices it deems go against the policy. We just have to wait and see what that entails. What is really immature is you reverting the changes three times because you disagree with the consensus. NoahTalk 13:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal for maps

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

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

Newest Proposal Yet

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

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

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

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2/EF0
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
  • Keep in mind that I am unable to produce maps on my own so I can't produce visual aids other than the table above. NoahTalk 20:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   must be used for Category 5 in conjuction with any black text in place of the above in order to pass AA (very slight difference in shading).
  • Up-to-date map (normal vision) link here
Old timelines
  • These timelines show color blind perception of the timelines using the old scale.
Images of current timelines
Blue Blindness

Green Blindness

Red Blindness

Current timeline (Normal Vision)
Saffir-Simpson scale
Provisions
1. The colors above will be adopted in place of the scale which was approved via RfC for maps and will replace the currently used scale for templates and infoboxes.
Withdrawn provisions

2. We recognize that easytimeline is outdated and has technological shortfalls that prevent us from achieving both a viable scale and color blind compatibility.
3. Therefore, we approve using the scale and background approved in the prior RfC on a temporary basis until such time that we have a viable graphing extension replacement formulated in order to eliminate any issues with color blind compatibility in the meantime. (To clarify, this means creating a timeline using the existing graphing extension, not creating a new extension entirely)
4. Once a viable replacement for easytimeline has been created, it will be put through an approval process to show it is color blind compliant before being implemented.
5. Maps on commons will not be overridden but instead will have new files uploaded via bot since this was not discussed on Meta with the support of other Wiki communities. Some files can't be uploaded by a bot and have to be done manually.
6. Maps will be overridden on commons IF there is a discussion on Meta that has the support of sister wikis (these sister projects must be notified appropriately).
7. Timeline background will go back to its prior color and the new scheme will be adopted for timelines as well
Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Forgot to mention why I supported the proposed color scheme in the first place. Put simply, this has the rather unique idea of modifying the lightness of colors for categories lower than the SSHWS Categories 1 to 5, and does not have the extremely rough transition from red to purple like our current (recently-applied) scale does (which is a common hate point). I'd suggest the timeline background color be bumped darker to alleviate any contrast issues with Category 1, though. Chlod (say hi!) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified what I meant. I didn't mean to create an entirely new extension, but rather to formulate a replacement using the existing extension. I will also add a 6th provision for those in favor to starting a discussion on Meta and notifying sister wiki projects. NoahTalk 21:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "viable graphing extension replacement" definitely could have been worded better. In any case, I reiterate my point that our implementation might be what needs fixing. After all, what's the use of switching to a different graphing system if the same issues arise? And in addition, how can we prove that switching to a different way of formulating the timeline will fix the problem? Chlod (say hi!) 21:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrew 2-4 since the original background is compatible with the new colors (including the previously incompatible TS color). I assume you support the new provision 6 per your statement above. I added provisions 6 and 7 above. NoahTalk 22:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question This color scheme does not improve contrast as well as the current one, but I'm willing to get behind it since I'm kind of tired of wheeling around with these and, as I've said before, no color scheme will satisfy everyone. On provision 5, if some of the new files cannot be automatically given update counterparts, can a bot at least tag or categorize them, so we know which ones need to be done manually? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TornadoLGS: As far as I am aware, it would be possible. NoahTalk 21:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provision 1, per the reasons I gave above.
Support provision 5, as the one who proposed it. We can decide on categories and title format, but I don't think it will be a big issue.
Neutral on provision 6. It's a viable alternative, but I would want provision 5 to be on the table if we hold a discussion on Meta.
Support provision 7. If there are no color contrast issues, I see no reason to change the background color from the original. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provision 1 – per TornadoLGS.
Neutral on 5 and 6. Whatever works for everyone else works for me.
Support provision 7 to keep the original background color.
United States Man (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Slight adjustments were made due to the maps showing an issue with C3 and C4 being a bit too close. No major change overall. NoahTalk 00:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 & 7, Neutral on 5 & 6 I like the progression of colors in this latest proposal and the retention of a gray background. Drdpw (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support the newest proposal, as well as most of the active provisions (1, 6, and 7). As I've stated multiple times on these discussions, we need colors that are more accessible to colorblind readers. And the 2008–2022 coloring system (the older one that we're all familiar with) had shades for C1, C2, and C3 that were too similar to each other even for some readers with normal color vision. This newest proposal resolves the accessibility issues while also being more similar to the older system, as is clearly more acceptable to our editors. The C1-C4 colors in this proposal are also easier to distinguish than the more familiar scale. As such, I believe that it is a fair compromise, and an excellent proposal. I support starting a discussion on Meta-Wiki and pinging every single Wikimedia site with its own version of WPTC (such as simple wiki, zh.wiki, es.wiki, etc.) to discuss the changes across all the various projects. It would be better if we can have all of the projects in sync, as this would also make it easier to maintain the track maps. In the event that the Meta-Wiki discussions are nowhere near wrapping up by the time we have a bot setup with the capability to redo the maps, I would consider implementing Provision 5, so we can already get started on uploading revised track maps. The discussions should not drag out for months or even years. Concerning the other changes, I think that all of the changes local to en.wiki should be implemented immediately, upon the closure of this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provision 1, the colors provide sufficient contrast between each other (see image if you want to test).
Wait on provision 5, wait for consensus to be reached on Meta/other wikis. If they support the change, override. If they don't, make new files. The track maps can wait.
Support provision 6, see above
Support provision 7, map provides sufficient contrast. Akbermamps 02:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partially Support provision 1, only thing that really stands out still is the transition from orange to maroon there. Still looks like a duller color than the prior category.NickWX28 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickWX28: It's not maroon, but rather rose red.   for rose red and   for maroon. It's not really duller, but maybe it is a factor of it being a darker color. It still contrasts against the map sufficiently; We had to make the colors different and darker (in some cases) in order to provide enough contrast between colors on the map. I believe this is about as close as we can get to the original scale while still fixing all the issues we needed to. NoahTalk 11:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see the slight difference in shading there. To be fair though, i referred to it as maroon because it was just a darker red. My own eyes are terrible as well. Retinopathy does that sadly.NickWX28 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not in a position to assist productively in this discussion.JonRichfield (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, 5, neutral 6, 7. As such I have no idea about what the discussion regarding the timeline is about, but I have to say that the new colours are much better than the ones approved above; the new colours cause no eye pain, for my part. JavaHurricane 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, Neutral/Weak Support 5-6, Support 7 - These colors are much more friendlier then the previous scheme and are more closely related to the old colors. They satisfy much of the issues and don’t deviate far enough to confuse me as well. In regards to the maps, I support new maps, if they can’t be globalized then create separate files and have a bot replace them in the pages, if they can be via consensus on Meta, upload a new version of the current files Timeline looks great as well, so I support bringing the previous background back for that as well. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Provisions 1, 5 and 7. Oppose Provision 6 - I agree, that this proposal is significantly better, than the previous ones. The contrast of the colours, slowly change throughout the scale. Unlike, the original proposal, with Category 4 being coded red and Category 5 being coded purple, respectively. The contrast between those two colours were alot darker than the rest of the scale, in that proposal. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1&7, Neutral, leaning support on 5&6- I like the new color scheme presented here, though I prefer the previous color change with purple cat 5 colors, but I will fully support it if it helps all people who have eyesight troubles. for provision #7, if there were no issues with the previous contrast color, I don't see why we can't change it back to the original color. as for 5&6, I feel more discussion is needed here to see which option is best, however I do think that it only seems fair to have a discussion on meta to get everyone involved and notified of any major changes made for the maps. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat 4 and Cat 5 are much too close in this new one so I cannot support the new proposal.—Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This color scheme obviously satisfies everyone else and should stop the arguing. Why not support it? United States Man (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jasper Deng and Cyclonebiskit did make a fair point about the C4 and C5 colors, which has hence been corrected. NoahTalk 13:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even better. If their issue has been corrected, they should be able to support it. United States Man (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new revision still does not make them nearly as distinguishable as purple and therefore I remain opposed.—Jasper Deng (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well. It apparently satisfies a vast majority here, but I guess you can't satisfy everyone. United States Man (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing wrong with the currently accepted February 2022 revision. The proposed scale doesn’t improve on what was agreed upon and only adjusts the problem to a muddied C4/5 boundary. I’ve been absent for two months, but I’m post-supporting the Feb 2022 RfC results that have already been implemented and don’t believe further change is warranted as long as it continues to comply with WP:ACCESS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why this was reopened was because most of the project despises the color scheme above so we are trying to achieve a balance between accessibility and aesthetics. Otherwise, the debate and ensuing chaos would never see an end. NoahTalk 11:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This color scheme obviously satisfies everyone else and should stop the arguing. Why not support it? It obviously improves on the first one in that the color scheme satisfies both the old way and ACCESS. United States Man (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, I remain opposed to this proposed scale tho. The color scheme doesn’t remedy the issue as well as the Feb 2022 version. Part of this whole issue stems from familiarity bias, we’ve been exposed to a particular color scheme for roughly 15 years. Altering it, even for the better, will inherently upset people as it is a departure from something familiar. I remain in support of the current Feb 2022 version. @Hurricane Noah: can you add the Feb 2022 version to the proposal table so everyone can easily compare the three versions? I believe this is creating some unclear discussion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is unclear? This is a compromise to both sides. If you can't support that then you aren't really working toward a true solution. United States Man (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @United States Man: there’s no reason to be so hostile. I’m asking Noah for a broader comparison image while expressing what I don’t like about the proposed scale and my thoughts on it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyclonebiskit and @Hurricanehink I updated the table above to include all the colors from the old scale, the previously approved, and this new proposal. NoahTalk 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see much improvement with my concerns on the updated colors. I still oppose these new colors. Other arguments haven't been substantiated outside "I don't like it" which isn't enough to overturn an RfC. There's no problem with a significant color shift, especially when it better highlights the difference in categories, while retaining aesthetic appeal, rather than a gradual shift that can be difficult to differentiate at a glance. I've yet to see any complaints from non-WP:Weather members regarding the new scale...there would be at least a handful of IPs commenting their gripes if it was that much of an issue. Regarding mapping issues, no example has been put forth to convey this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An issue may be that people simply do not know where to go to complain. I have seen numerous instances of complaints on twitter from non-WP weather people who view our site. See [11] and [12] as examples of external complaints. I'm sure people would be coming here if they knew where to go. NoahTalk 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1,6, and 7- This new scheme is much better than the February revision. I will fully support this reason being it retains the look of the original, satisfies access concerns, and is aesthetically pleasing. As for the bot implementation, I oppose using one. I have the data for all storm that had metadata changes, includes RSMC data, and other custom settings to make sure tracks look proper. A bot would introduce errors. I can run through the most recent data 2000-2021 within a few months if people are patient. Supportstorm (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. I kinda preferred the colors agreed back in February, under the heading Infobox & Template colors. The purple as Cat 5 stands out better than the rose red, and the gradation makes more sense. There isn't enough difference between Cat 4 and Cat 5. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does jumping to an entirely different color for Cat 5 make more sense than a red graduation that satisfies ACCESS? United States Man (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're already changing thousands of maps. I think it's easier to see the difference with purple as C5, so the gradations all stand out more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with purple C5 as I see it IIRC from Noah is that the contrast against the map is (Blue Marble) hard to tell. We would probably have to change to a different map style entirely to satisfy ACCESS. He can clarify for me if needed. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only real issue I see is purple tends to be a bit of an eyesore for people against the background of this map. I'm honestly not seeing any real differences in accessibility looking at the table comparison above. NoahTalk 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm fine with the proposed changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support- I support the 1, 5 & 7 options. I feel that they suit my eyes & are similar to the older colors but still help others who do inherently have this condition. Also if there is a bot that can redo the colors then I'm all for it. Flasty Jam (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, basically per Hurricanehink. Even with Noah's revision, the new colors don't sufficiently distinguish between Cat 4 and Cat 5. Purple for Cat 5 is distinct and consistent with many external weather sites. No compelling reason has been advanced to overturn the results of the February RfC. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the map I had posted under JD's comment above? It shows a decent contrast between the C4 and C5 colors. Im not sure why so many people are still insisting there isn't sufficient contrast. This was meant to be a peace offering/compromise to the other side so we could both get what we wanted and move on. Nothing can be enacted until no more objections are raised here against whatever scale we decide on. NoahTalk 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why I noted that my concerns were in spite of that update. If multiple people are raising the same concern, then maybe there's really a problem beyond just belligerence. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Juliancolton: Would you at least be willing to support either provision 5 or provision 6 which are independent of the color scheme proposed here? They deal with the handling of implementation regarding the map updates on COMMONS regardless of which scale ends up being decided upon here. NoahTalk 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, provisions 5 and 6 are acceptable regardless of which color scheme is used. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (all provisions) – the proposed color scheme, despite satisfying accessibility guidelines, gives the appearance of being a divergent color scale centered at Category 1 for colorblind users. An intensity color scale should not be presented in that manner. The previously approved scale handles this issue better and offers the best differentiation between categories. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAustinMan: I'm just curious, what exactly is the problem with a divergent scale? I looked at the page and it said to have extreme values at both ends. In this case PTC being the least intense category and C5 being the most intense. Also, we need a consensus either way on whether we implement a scale locally only or attempt to implement on a global level, regardless of which scale ends up being implemented. NoahTalk 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Divergent scales give the appearance of a "neutral" position between the extremes, and in this case, that would oddly be the Category 1 rating, which would not make much sense given that there is no "neutral" intensity. We should also be seeking support of sister wikis to ensure presentation of storm intensities is uniform after reaching consensus here. I Support provision 6, and am neutral on provision 7. Oppose provisions 1 and 5. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose provision 1, Support provisions 5-6. I went back and forth on this for a while, hence why it's taken so long to comment. At the end of the day, I think the original colors that were decided upon by consensus should remain. The goal of that endeavour was to eliminate colors looking too similar. In the proposed version here, categories 3-4 are hard to differentiate. This problem does not exist for the colors already rolled out. And while I understand the concern about using recognized colors for different categories compared to the original version, this is something that users can adjust to again with time--something that wasn't given before rushing into yet another lengthy discussion here. If there's widespread and consistent criticism of the color scale by members of the public, then a new discussion can be started down the line. Everything else is just speculation. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see an issue with telling C3 and C4 apart on the proposed colors. We can only change it so much before it ends up failing ACCESS and one of the colorblind tests and thus becomes an untenable proposal since it doesn’t satisfy one side. Also, despite the claim of getting used to shifted colors, I find that hard to believe as we’ve already seen criticism about this (off-wiki as well), plus purple C5 is quite a bit of an eyesore against the ocean background (which we are most likely not changing). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cat 2-4 range has long been an issue with the original scale, which is why these discussions have been occurring for a decade. If you look at your table above, the proposed Cat 3 is darker than the original one, which puts it closer to the Cat 4 colors. This is not an issue in the accepted colors, since the old Cat 5 color/now Cat 4 color is clearly separable. I have no issue with the purple as is. I mentioned time in my post because we have to be cognizant that any change whatsoever, good or bad, will be criticized at the onset for moving past a color scale that has existed a decade. I'm more interested in complaints 3 months from now than I am right now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do have a love for the original color scheme, though that is definitely due to it's use for more than 15 years, and I accept that there were accessibility issues that necessitated changes. I am neutral on either color scheme, though I think that we should decide soon (though with proper consideration), and accept the results moving forward. My only concern with the new changes is that the PTC/disturbance color is darker than the tropical depression/tropical storm color — this darkness is which I unconsciously associate with stronger storms, so that is a bit jarring for me. If I have to make a decision, I may want to keep the RfC colors. — Iunetalk 00:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support with the newest proposed color scale, which I did not exactly know was the case until I found out on the Discord server. Nonetheless, it is better than whatever was put into place currently, and I seem to be in the rarer population of those who actually like it better than the old colors. I do see the reasons for changing the colors, and I believe the newest proposed ones are definitely a suitable compromise between the ones who wanted the old colors to stay, and the ones who felt the current ones fit the best. funnycomixking | Talk 01:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment I don't think the argument that purple does not contrast against the blue ocean background is sustainable:
Currently approved
Under the newest proposal
  • Comment. I am not a fan of the purple color from the RFC, but I'm afraid that the proposed color scale tries to compress too many classifications within a single chroma band, which was the shortfall of the original scale. While the proposal does address WP:ACCESS concerns, it does not address the C1-C4 confusion, so I think some sort of purple hue will be needed for C4-C5. Titoxd(?!?) 00:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The background on all of these maps could cause accessibility issues so I rather see us replace the base map first before changing the colors. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That itself is a tedious process (and was discussed way earlier in this whole thing) so that’s kind of off the table for now. Plus copyright and stuff is different on some of the maps and that is a whole mess we’d not want to get bogged down in. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all changes since November 16. The map should be on the table first before any of the discussion should have happened. We are already bogged down so I see no reason why we couldn't start from step one. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nova Crystallis: I could get behind that, if there is the possibility of accessibility issues on the map as well, they definitely need to be addressed along with the colors. Just to clarify, you're proposing to basically restart the discussion from the beginning and find/agree on a better map, and then find colors for the intensity scale and continue to work on from there? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may just be me, but I find it difficult to differentiate between the Category 4 and 5 colors in this proposal. They look very similar to me, and I need to zoom in to see the difference, and even then I can only barely see it. It's even worse when I have the blue light filter on. SolarisPenguin (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to note that this discussion has been brought up in the WPTC Discord server, and as such, some people commenting may have been notified of the discussion through there or asked to comment by another user off-wiki. For transparency, I am part of the WPTC Discord server and have also discussed the changes there, but I had knowledge of this discussion before it was brought up there. I will also not be making any comment as to my opinion for fairness’ sake; I am merely here to notify about the possibility of stealth canvassing. PurpleLights! 22:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, revert to status quo ex ante. On Commons are lieing thousands of track maps, which are itself used in dozens of Wikipedia.- What was the plan? Without notification change all those track maps and confuse users from other language versions? Or the other way around, keep those maps and confuse English WP readers? Or, even more confusing, uploading several thousand new track maps with the new color scheme for EN-WP-only? Oh wait, you guys never thought on commons and other language versions. In 16 years of WP I saw several stupid ideas, some of them even put into reality, but this is a prototype of how-not! Head bang table ouch! --Matthiasb (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthiasb: We are currently waiting for ArbCom to finish before we can proceed. Whatever their decision is will be what will be implemented regarding this RfC as it was known to have been affected by canvassing. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthiasb: Adding to Mario's comment, one solution under consideration, which I proposed, would be to create a second set of maps with the new colors instead of changing existing ones, so other language wikis can choose whether they want to switch over to the new colors or stay with the old ones. Or, alternatively, there could be a discussion on Meta. Though again, as Mario says, we shouldn't make any moves on this matter either way until ArbCom makes its decision. I just wanted to let you know that there are other options. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid proposal

Color Hex H S V Contrast
Track map of Hurricane Katrina in a newly-proposed color scale for English Wikipedia
PT #6699ff 220 60 100 AAA (7.56:1)
TD #59c8ff 205 65 100 AAA (11.13:1)
TS #4dffff 180 70 100 AAA (17.06:1)
C1 #ffffd9 60 15 100 AAA (20.55:1)
C2 #ffd98c 40 45 100 AAA (15.55:1)
C3 #ff9e59 25 65 100 AAA (10.28:1)
C4 #ff738a 350 55 100 AAA (8.07:1)
C5 #d580ff 280 50 100 AAA (8.36:1)

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

It stands up on the colorblindness charts but I think the C5 color could be a bit darker, like in the current color scheme. This is based on an intuitive progression from light to dark colors with increasing intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The lighter colors actually make the C4 (light red) and C3 (orange) colors harder to tell apart from a difference. I'd like to see those categories use a darker shade. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are C3 and C4 here difficult to tell apart? They seem rather well-defined both for those who can see all colors on the visible spectrum and for those with the three types of colorblindness (the significant difference in lightness is more than enough to adequately tell them apart and the original proposal that was supported was actually worse in this respect). And I like the lightness, personally, since it makes the scale feel more natural and doesn't have the last one/two colors be jarringly darker than everything else. If you're gonna change the lightness significantly, it should be progressive through the entire scale, not just making the end darker. Master of Time (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Much of this rehashes the problems with the current new scale and only makes things lighter (as well as having the shifting color problem as well). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the hybrid proposal (in conjunction with provisions 5 and 6 from Noah in the above discussion). It fixes the issues I had with colors being too similar and makes the category transition feel more natural. A new color is necessary to create an adequate range of colors and purple is the best fit for it. I believe making the purple darker would cause issues blue marble background, as evidenced by the maps provided by Jasper. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning oppose Oppose – This scale looks okay for the most part, but I'd like to see a darker red color for C4, similar to what we have for the current C4 color (the former C5 color).A darker shade would make it easier to see on the maps. And perhaps a slightly darker shade of orange for C3 as well. Additionally, the lighter colors does make it a bit harder to differentiate the C4 and C3 colors at a smaller resolution. Also, what color are we going to use for the new severe tropical storm color? Menthol green? I don't see this category addressed in this proposal. Also, I feel like we are going to run into the same opposition to those who opposed the coloring system currently in use. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to "oppose" now, in light of the issues identified by Akbermamps. Any viable coloring system has to work for both normal vision and colorblind readers, in templates, the track maps, and the Timeline chart. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The color scheme is a bit too light and I think it's hard to distinguish C1 and C2 colors on the map. Also, I'm not sure that introducing more color schemes is the most productive thing to do at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TornadoLGS: As you are probably aware, XKCD is satirical in nature and in this case, the analogy does not follow. If anything, having colors be brighter is necessary for contrast against the dark blue map. This is more akin to the RfC process of IETF than what’s in that strip.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jasper Deng: I am aware it is satirical, but I do think that it applies. The more proposed color schemes there are, the more camps there will be in this discussion, and the harder it will be to reach a consensus. An issue, I've found, with too many light colors, is that even if they are easy to distinguish in a chart, they are harder to distinguish from each other if they are all against a dark background, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a color scale. It seems to me that both the current color scheme and the second one under discussion, proposed by Noah, have sufficient contrast from the background. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support this as having the best of both worlds and also being based on sound color science instead of hand-waving like “it looks ugly”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While pleasant and contrast-compliant, looking on color blindness simulators, the colors are either too close to each other or unintuitive. On the red-blind and green-blind simulations, the C1 and TS colors are basically undistinguishable, and on the blue-blind simulation, the C5 color is too close to the C3 color. It's confusing to see the scale getting redder and redder, then when it gets to C5, it suddenly gets lighter. I also want to note that changing the TS/TD color to be farther away from C1 will make the TD color too close to the C5 color for blue-blind people. With some fixes, this could work, but for now I'm opposing. Akbermamps 06:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided we slightly modify the PTC color to contrast with the C5 shade (and for everything except PTC), I will support. I like this significantly more than the original proposal that was voted on on the basis that it seems more natural with fewer weird jumps in the colors and makes the scale less oversaturated while still looking good on the colorblindness metrics. Master of Time (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively support the use of varying hues to allow for clear distinctions in colors, a fairly uniform brightness, and the use of a bright color for cat 5. This is in contrast to the dark color "rose red" in the March 21st proposal which makes cat 4 the most prominent color on the dark blue track map background. I do think the one thing that perhaps hurts it is that it feels a bit too pastel/light, which could affect the color distinction somewhat. Would also like to see the colorblindness scale comparison, though given the similarity to the recently adopted color scale, it is likely quite sufficient in that respect. – atomic𓅊7732 07:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic7732: [13] here is a color comparison chart. You can use [14] to check the map proposed here if you would like. NoahTalk 11:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to contrast issues between TS and C1 for two types of color blindness, issues between C3 and C5 for one type, and because the top of the scale looks almost the same as the bottom on color blindness simulations. These problems are not apparent on a color table, but they are clear when looking at the map. NoahTalk 11:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that it is still difficult to tell TS from the original timeline background on this proposal, which is what the currently used scheme addressed. If we are looking at the new timeline background, the C1 would be too hard for normal vision and color blind vision. NoahTalk 13:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the fact the colors are too light and it doesn't fix the issues with the latest color issues. The problem was that many people haven't adjusted from the OG color scheme and are still going to have issues. Hell, how weird this one looks, it makes me want to go to the color scheme we have now. As for the color blind situation, due to its lightness, it would still be a problem per Noah so therefore I reject this. Flasty Jam (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we arbitrarily deciding this scale is "too light"? The current one, if anything, is oversaturated and too dark. At least this one is rooted in color science. Master of Time (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of a scale being too light and/or undersaturated is that it decreases contrast between the colors within it. Increasing saturation and scaling brightness makes the colors more distinguishable from one another, which is the reason for changing the color scale in the first place. On the map, this proposed color scheme doesn't offers little, if any, improvement over the original. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That last but is just objectively not true. Every color is decently discernible for all forms of colorblindness save the PTC and C5 colors, which not at all the case for the scale that has been in use for over 10 years. And yes, I did apply the colorblindness filters to the version on the map. Could it be slightly revised? Maybe. But I easily prefer it over the current scale or the original version that was voted on, save the PTC and C5 issue. Master of Time (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll add that if undersaturation and darkness really isn't an issue, then we should be using this scale, which was created by an actual color scientist and is consistently perceptually uniform and usable for those who suffer from colorblindness. But aesthetics do in fact matter as well — nobody wants an unattractive scale and it is clear that this scale is too dark and undersaturated for people's liking. Master of Time (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I experimented a little with different screens. On my two computer monitors at least, I have trouble distinguishing the C1 and C2 colors on the map. They seem less distinct from each other on the map than in a chart. While distinguishing colors from the background is important, I still think this places too much priority on that over distinguishing the colors from each other. There has to be a correct balance. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I wasn't even considering aesthetic arguments since that, I thought, would fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But I was under the impression that increasing saturation would make the colors more mutually distinguishable, which was the main goal of this discussion. Its value is more than simple aesthetics. For instance I made this scale by simply boosting the saturation from the link you gave. I'm not proposing this as the color scheme, but contrast among those colors is improved across the board. If I am missing something here, please let me know. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colour for Storm Force

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

Potential off-wiki canvassing

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

@United States Man: I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action would be right now. While it makes sense to revert to the old scale in light of the canvassing issue, that would be undoing the compliance with WP:ACCESS which isn't ideal. I think for now we should defer to ArbCom and see what their input on how to handle the RfC result is. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that came to mind. I had already thought the implementation of the new colors was a bit hasty, since we didn't have a concrete plan for track maps aside from potentially automating the task. On that subject, I had been under the impression that Noah would be the main one who would make the bots, and his block derails that plan. Would this weigh at all on such a decision and can/should I mention this at the ArbCom discussion? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned earlier (by Support) that he would do the bots thing. I probably would mention it but I’m not so sure. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking it over a bit, I believe it's best we leave things at the Feb 2022 RfC and revisit this discussion once the ArbCom case is settled. Many editors involved in the color discussion are involved in the case and we should respect the space for that to be handled. Once the dust settles, we should definitely have a renewed color discussion as we didn't reach a consensus on further changes. We can leave the maps at the legacy colors as there has been no consensus on how to move forward with that. I don't think it's a big deal that the map colors temporarily don't match the infoboxes as they always have a color key attached. Does that sound acceptable? As I'm involved in the color debate I cannot make this decision alone. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the RfCs (including the November 2021 one) was also influenced by canvassing. As much as I hate to say it it probably is best to revert back to the original scale for now until this entire thing is finished. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather defer this matter to ArbCom and in the meantime maintain the status quo as default as one person being canvassed should not result in a single discussion being nullified IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the old scheme, ignore WP:ACCESS. For the timelines we introduced C1, TS and other abbreviations some years ago, which are placed in brackets. (BTW: The light green color for Westpac severe tropical storms does not conform with WP:ACCESS either, once against the light blue für Depression and also against the grey background. OTOH, it falls totally out of the color scheme.)
For other language versions this all might result in a disaster. Who will update their infoboxes? Who will update their articles where necessary? Speaking as a German WP editor I can say, that the German WP would not have resources to make all the changes as there are only two or three WX articles editors at all. I guess many other languages also lack of users interested in WX or tropics. It would cause confusion for years, would cause discrepancies between articles which appears as vandalism rath than planned. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb: In regard to your comment on other language wikis, before this discussion ground to a halt because of the ArbCom case, there was already a developing consensus to either upload new maps with the new color scheme or involve other language wikis in a discussion on Meta about the maps, rather than unilaterally changing the maps. In the former case, each language wiki can choose whether to stay with the old color scheme or switch to the new one. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And who would be responsible to upload track maps using both color schemes? Come on, the problem already exists, that during the season track maps aren't created every six hours as they are needed, especially outisde the Atlantic. I don't see the manpower other language versions will be able to create track maps in the old color scheme (or even to create them) so it would the responsibility of this community to ensure that. Please keep in mind: in all other languages than EN the tropiocal cyclone interested community consist of less than five users, mostly less than two. Besides that keeping both schemes means, one color scheme has to use new file names. What is the plan for this canonical names? I also see the problem that during the season, when many unexperienced users edit the articles, they might use the wrong files. We already have to deal with users uploading sat pictures to English Wikipedia instead of Commons and using non-canonical names. Considering your user name, you probably are more familiar with the tornado part of WP weather articles and likely do not see the much wider complexity of the color scheme's dependencies on time line, track maps, season overviews (tables), and infoboxes as a whole.
BY the way: accessibility as in WCAG 2.0 AA-compatibility is about minimum font-size for a given specific combination of background color and font-color. It's not about graphics and color schemes using them. This Don't-like discussion is merely more than much ado about nothing caused by SOP and/or canvassing. Matthiasb (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb: Regarding non-English Wikis, the change doesn't seem like an unreasonable task. It can be done with some help from Google translate if needed. We'd have to gather the languages that use the color scheme, find their color hub (their Template:Storm colour), and make requests for the template to be updated at the proper location. Other languages seem to have just copy/pasted the original coding from en.wiki and the links are pretty universal (i.e Chinese Japanese, Korean, Thai, German, Bangladeshi) into their template so we can provide the updated coding for them. The beauty of having all of the colors being on a single template and not done in each individual infobox is that updating them only takes a single edit in each language. The only thing that's actually difficult will be updating the thousands of maps, as you've mentioned. Supportstorm actively provides the tracking data in their uploads so if we reach an agreement to fully implement these colors, all users with the program can systematically upload the new versions. It could take months to fully roll everything out, but it's certainly doable. As for confusion, that comes with the territory of overhauling a long-used template that has been used thousands upon thousands of times. Such massive changes cannot be made with the snap of a finger, and there will be discrepancies during the transition period. As long as the effort is coordinated on our end (since it appears en.wiki users are the only ones utilizing the track generator) it will work out. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: The german WP does indeed make use of a similar template set like in this wiki. However we do not use the (same) templates for tables as such templates are somwhat depreciated in our language version. We use them only when they can be used for thousands of articles, like f. ex. in lists on historic places. The risk of getting such templates deleted is rather great. They deleted for example the de:Template:TC name unused for two reasons: small usage (we have about 60 or so season articles so far) and accessibility what was non-sense because the color in DE:WP was slightly darker than in EN:WP and therfore passed the WCAG Level AAA test.
The last few years I used the storm color template proper ("Hurrikan-Farbcode") for formatting the tables, f.ex.
| Agatha || {{SortKey|01|28. Mai bis xx. Juni}} || bgcolor=#{{Hurrikan-Farbcode|cat2}}|{{SortKey|1|Hurrikan}} || bgcolor=#{{Hurrikan-Farbcode|cat2}}|{{SortKey|175|175 km/h}} || bgcolor=#{{Hurrikan-Farbcode|cat2}}|{{SortKey|964|964 hPa}} ||  || data-sort-value="10"| minimal|| 0 ||
But I am not sure wether I used the fix color number in earlier years. The same for the cell background in tornado list, f.ex. bgcolor="#{{Hurrikan-Farbcode|storm}}
What make things worse, is some user adding individual made shift boxes as legends for the track maps in which they use hard color codes in de:Vorlage:Farblegende. --Matthiasb (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Nearly) Post-ArbCom

One comment I feel I should make before the arbcom case closes very soon, it seems like the discussion may be able to resume but started fresh. I suggest the recent color proposal that was proposed above in this section to be proposed again as minus the canvassing, that seemed to be the favoured one to solve the colourblind issues at hand but remain close to the legacy colors. This is just my thoughts and the arbcom can clarify that to the project if needed. If a new scheme is proposed then the above I suggest that it still retain the likeness of the legacy but solves the issues at hand, that suits everyone and isn’t a complete messup. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be my last comment at this page. I have updated the colors table for monochromacy due to the concerns raised during the case regarding that. Given what has happened, I think my exclusion from any future project discussions is warranted and as such I have requested that I receive a page ban from both this page and the WPTC talk page. I also request that you leave my name struck out on the list of WPTC and WPWX members since I was blocked when I was removed and am not rejoining. Let that serve as a reminder to everyone else both present and future to not discuss any on-wiki discussions off-wiki. Even if your actions are in good faith, you are canvassing because you are notifying a non-neutral group of people that a discussion exists. I hope you guys can find a solution, but don't involve me in this any further. NoahTalk 14:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for clarification on this matter here, and the recommendation I got from one ArbCom member would be to restart the discussion, using the current colors as the status quo. If we end up changing the colors again (be it closer to the legacy colors or not), it probably doesn't make a huge difference what our starting point is. As it is, @Hurricane Noah: asking purely as a technical question, how would I go about generating my own maps with potential proposed colors? Keeping in mind that I don't really have any coding knowledge (though I will be taking some Python courses soon). Alternatively, I could use ArcMap to make them, but I would need to know where to find Blue Marble to use as a basemap. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to ask Chlod. He was the one who was going to make the bot and has technical knowledge of the track maker. NoahTalk 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. @Chlod:. See the question above that I had for Noah. It might be preferable to just use Blue Marble in ArcMap, since that is what I know. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: If you want to change the colors temporarily, you can just override the colors with --c5color, --c4color, etc. For example, 
./bin/track --input ./data/bwp222020.dat --format atcf --res 3000 --bg ./data/bg8192.png --output "Goni (2020).png" --extra 1 --scale SSHWS --c5color 000000
If you want to change the colors permanently, it's just a matter of modifying the related lines in scales.c (specifically the parts that look like COLOR(0x5e, 0xba, 0xff), which represents   #5ebaff for example). After that, just rebuild the track generator (as shown in the installation guide) and you should be good to go. The newly-built program will essentially work the same as the original albeit with modified colors. Chlod (say hi!) 00:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)][reply]
I'll take a look if we get to fiddling with different color schemes. I remember looking into starting using the track generator and it seemed a little beyond my ken. So I'll also see if I can find Blue Marble for a basemap in ArcMap. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod: Well, I found the download for Blue Marble at least, but it's not map-projected. So I'll see about georeferencing it. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: In my opinion if the status quo is being used as the starting part, I feel at least for a while the colors should be temporarily returned to the legacy colors during the debate if that’s going to be the case since those would be the ones under debate. Just my two cents since I will not be able to suggest anything going forward indefinitely pretty soon. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that when restarting the discussion if that ends up being what this done, I think that the colors should be proposed to be changed again from their Feb 2022 state given that before there seemed to be quite a lot of dislike for the new C3/4/5 given that purple seemed out of place (and had its own issue) and the colors were shifted down one spot. There’s not a whole lot of room to compromise there but there had been some good suggestions back in March that fit that criteria and stuck sort of close to the old legacy colors. Perhaps members of this community can look at that as suggestions/ideas as the new scale should be able to satisfy everyone and not cause the hostility or opposition the recent change caused. One final thing, would a proposer be allowed to ping the active members on wiki to discuss? That seemed to be the issue last time in February so I’m asking this so the project doesn’t get caught off guard again (Also, do not ping me if this occurs as I will not be able to discuss). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to re-propose Newest Proposal Yet once the Arbcom case is closed. It had the most support, and is a good compromise version. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: The case is now closed, the results of which may be found at that link. Please let this serve as a lesson to everyone both present and future that discussions where consensus needs to be reached should never be mentioned off-wiki. While I am not restricted from participating here by the remedies of the case, I think I shouldn't be participating in discussions as a result of what happened. NoahTalk 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-proposed it. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Proposal Yet, once more

NO CONSENSUS
For full disclosure, I am closing this discussion per a request on my talk page. From reading the above, this discussion has been marred with issues, specifically those with canvassing. There seems to be a general thought that despite having a new colour scheme, that it does indeed fail WP:ACCESS requirements. However, the specific colours being discussed do not have a consensus to be implemented, despite some support. It seems as though lots of users have differing opinions on how best to solve the issues, which may need to be correlated before a new RfC. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many editors, though recognizing that the original colors had accessibility issues, were unsatisfied with the previously approved colors (myself included). It was also discovered that the approved colors had an issue with monochromatic colorblindness, therefore not conforming with WP:ACCESS as much as previously thought. So Hurricane Noah decided to propose a compromise: "Newest Proposal Yet", which still met WP:ACCESS but resolved the issues editors had with the approved colors. (courtesy link: #Newest Proposal Yet)

Newest Proposal Yet garnered much support, but was fraught with canvassing issues that were raised in the ArbCom case. So now that it has been closed, I am re-proposing a canvassing-free version of it, with the hope that WPWX members can finally reach an agreement on which colors to use.

🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Proposal Yet, once more: Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR O PA PR
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2/EF0
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5

(copied from original Newest Proposal Yet)

Newest Proposal Yet, once more: Provisions
1. The colors above will be adopted in place of the scale which was approved via RfC for maps and will replace the currently used scale for templates and infoboxes.
2. (formerly 5) Maps on commons will not be overridden but instead will have new files uploaded via bot since this was not discussed on Meta with the support of other Wiki communities. Some files can't be uploaded by a bot and have to be done manually.
3. (formerly 6) Maps will be overridden on commons IF there is a discussion on Meta that has the support of sister wikis (these sister projects must be notified appropriately).
4. (formerly 7) Timeline background will go back to its prior color and the new scheme will be adopted for timelines as well

(copied from original Newest Proposal Yet)

Newest Proposal Yet, once more: Discussion

Should the colors used to denote intensity in tropical cyclone and tornado articles be changed? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all provisions A good compromise for those who are dissatisfied with the approved version's purple for Category 5 and monochromatic color-blindness issue. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all 1.) Green color for storm warnings never is a good proposal. Green color of any kind means all is okay. 2.) The combination purple/black is almost non-readable, for example as in the seasons' overview tables. Also the combination purple/dark blue as we have it in trackmaps over sea, has insufficient contrast. On other places it causes eye cancer. 3.) I also observe bad contrast between the green and the light blue for depressions, both in track maps and time lines. 4.) The darker canvas for time lines should be retained. All this together means to revert to the status quo ex ante. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purple? Purple is the approved version's C5, not Newest Proposal Yet's, please see the PR column. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Testing the waters: do we even need colors?

Nova Crystallis made a very interesting comment above: But do we even need colors? I feel like the number is enough. Do we need colors? In the text, the colors are just over the storm category, and in the maps, we could just have dots saying "C5" instead of colors. Other WikiProjects that relied too much on colors stopped using them per WP:ACCESS. I feel like whatever color scheme we propose, someone will oppose it, and this thread is already over 200KB.

The legacy colors are unacceptable. There are multiple WP:ACCESS issues, and the colors are difficult to distinguish even without color blindness.

The current colors are problematic. There is a slight monochromatic colorblindness issue, and many editors disagree with the C5 color being purple.

The Newest Proposal Yet colors are objectionable. Though WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing, currently the count is at 2 Support, 3 Oppose, and the concerns raised are legitimate.

So if the mundane topic of which colors to use is so heated the matter goes to ArbCom*, and nobody can agree on which one to use, then why not end the use of colors in WikiProject Weather?

* I recognize that it was mainly about canvassing, however, the storm colors got a big mention in the case.
--🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do need the colors, and I would vehemently oppose getting rid of them. United States Man (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that moving to lettering/numbering for the maps would work, since the maps become cramped when we add lettering from the local scales in such as VITC.Jason Rees (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jason Rees. Using letters or numbers would be too cramped and hard to read. This would be especially true for tracks of slow-moving systems, which can be hard to follow as it is; likely impossible with numbers and letters. I'll also point out (interesting that it hasn't been discussed much) that WP:ACCESS is a guideline. It says right at the top of the page: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In other words, we should make a reasonable effort to satisfy WP:ACCESS, but we do not need to bend over backwards to meet it down to every minute detail. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jason Rees & TornadoLGS: removing colors would make track maps very difficult to read. Even the slightly imperfect color scheme currently used at the moment would be better in track maps than removing colors from those images. — Iunetalk 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also this would cause another problem. When a storm has a short track the dots tend to be bigger, but by transocean tracks the dots get very small. I don't see/know wether other symbols/letters could be scaled in a way that they remain recognizable. (Not sure if I was understandable.) Matthiasb (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I said was for removing colors from infoboxes, never did I say for maps. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had thought you meant getting rid of the colors altogether. There was a proposal for that somewhere earlier (before ArbCom), or at least that any colored portion of an infobox would not have text on it. There may have been a suggestion (possibly by me) to have a colored bar above and below the text, but not behind it. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was confused for a second since Chicdat did propose removing colored symbols from maps, but I could get behind changing the storm infobox so it doesn't have text on a colored background. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it make any logical sense to remove colors from infoboxes and leave them in the maps? United States Man (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that discussion is starting to show me that in order to go forward we need to go back to basics here and examine what we need the colours for in particular and what we are trying to portray by including them where we do to ensure it makes sense and complies with Wikipedia's polices. At the moment, we have them in the maps, infoboxes, season effect charts, timeline images, they have also appeared in the basin lists. One presumes that the colour is there to represent how strong a system was at its peak in that particular basin, however, the way I read @Matthiasb:'s comment about green meaning that everything is ok, makes me wonder if the colours are there to represent the level of danger from a system. Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: And that's why purple for C5 is problematic. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how something like this would be implemented in a template, but I did a couple little mock-ups in photoshop of how colors might be retained in an infobox without putting text on a colored background. here, and here. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is less with the infobox since infobox titles use a bigger font for which AA level is acceptable. The issue remains with the text in the season overview tables where obviously the normal font size is used, for most users that's 12 p. Arial. I also don't see the problem with the timeline grpahics. Here it's important that the blues are distinguished from the canvas. The contrast TD/TS, IMO, isn't much important as we put TD, TS, C1 and so on in bracktes after the storm name. Matthiasb (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beating life into a dead horse

Lee Vilenski has closed #Newest Proposal Yet, once more as no consensus with the reason For full disclosure, I am closing this discussion per a request on my talk page. From reading the above, this discussion has been marred with issues, specifically those with canvassing. There seems to be a general thought that despite having a new colour scheme, that it does indeed fail WP:ACCESS requirements. However, the specific colours being discussed do not have a consensus to be implemented, despite some support. It seems as though lots of users have differing opinions on how best to solve the issues, which may need to be correlated before a new RfC.

The current colors are problematic because of the monochromatic colorblindness issue; because purple fails AAA for black text; because green means everything is okay, but yellow, orange, and red (not purple) mean worsening levels of danger. Also, some opposers, like Matthiasb, seemed to be talking about the already-approved version ([T]he combination purple/black is almost non-readable, for example as in the seasons' overview tables. Also the combination purple/dark blue as we have it in trackmaps over sea, has insufficient contrast.) in their opposes, further emphasizing the issues.

So how should we solve the problem? Or is there one at all? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to participate here directly for a while (mostly during that last discussion), but it seems I'm going to have to. The monochromatic colorblindness is a serious issue that needs addressed. Keep in mind that the timelines still fail MOS:ACCESS for red color colorblindness with the grey background. AAA is not the requirement for text... We are only required to satisfy AA. The minimum contrast ratio we are allowed to have is 4.5 to 1 for text, which satisfies AA for all text. AAA requires a much higher contrast ratio (7.0 to 1) which we aren't always able to achieve. The green thing is just an "I don't like it" and is inherently false. If you look at the color scale Mexico uses for its warnings (other countries do as well): The scale starts with blue at the bottom being minimal danger, then proceeds to a green alert, which means low level danger. A yellow alert signifies moderate danger, followed by an orange alert that means high danger level. The scale tops off with a red alert, the maximum level of danger then you will see that green does not mean everything is okay. The real thing that needs to be done, which I have been working on, is writing up an explanation as to why certain changes are needed and allowing the opportunity for feedback before rushing in with a RfC. This is a process that takes time and agreement to get done. NoahTalk 13:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to change the color scheme at this time Andre🚐 23:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redux of the Redux: Newest Proposal Yet

Which color scheme is more accessible? The current colors (CC) or the proposed colors (PC)?

The legacy colors (LC) are shown on the table for reference, however, I will make it very clear that we are NOT reverting back to those colors as they have serious accessibility issues. People inside and outside this project have acknowledged these colors are not acceptable due to their incompatibility with MOS:ACCESS. Comments that are made solely to attempt to revert back to the legacy colors due to work it may create or on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds should not be considered as a result. The legacy colors must go or else articles may lose their GA and FA statuses for failing to be accessible.

The current colors were recently approved in the last RfC when the proposal to change them was rejected. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots for those who have monochromatic color blindness. Keep in mind that this also fixes the maps for people printing them in black and white (two birds with one stone). There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart on the grey scale. We also have issues with the TS color and the timeline background for red color blindness (demonstrated below) which hasn't been fixed since people want to keep the background unchanged. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below colors, which increases the contrast between the weather colors. Please place preliminary comments in the feedback section below. Please leave comments for the RfC in the discussion section below.

As a compromise between keeping the old scale and improving for WP:ACCESS for color blind, I propose the following new scale. I would also like to make it very clear, Consensus was reached above to NOT have ANY links on colored backgrounds so the below colors only need to have AA contrast against black text. NoahTalk 14:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color table comparison

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
  • See Supportstorm's map of Amphan below:

Grey vision; only see B+W (monochromatic visuals)
Current colors normal vision



Current colors monochromatic (grey vision; only see B+W)



Proposed colors monochromatic (grey vision; only see B+W)


Why these changes are necessary

General

It has been established that our prior color scale (legacy colors) failed MOS:ACCESS by hindering the ability of color-blind individuals to differentiate between colors in tables, infoboxes, timelines, and track maps. While the current colors do a good job of eliminating the issue of red, blue, and green color blindness, it has been brought up that these colors are not the best for those with monochromatic color blindness. I believe that Chicdat, by no failure on his part, was simply unable to explain why changes were being proposed since he didn't have involvement in their inception. As can be seen currently, several colors look very close to one another or can't be differentiated between on the monochromatic table. Specifically, PTC and TD look similar. Likewise for TD and TS as well as STS and C1. Simply put, C4 and C5 look identical. This isn't acceptable for accessibility reasons and it is our duty to correct it before we implement the color changes on a broader scale. In order to make the scale acceptable for monochromatic colorblindness accessibility, more of the grey scale must be utilized by various colors. Considering we are limited on what colors we can pick that match up with the map background, we are limited on how much we can change the scale overall to suit colorblindness issues. Below, I will explain why certain color (groups) have been changed to fix the issues mentioned. Given the feedback I saw at the prior RfC by Chicdat, the EF0 color is again the TS color. Additionally, these color changes would by nature make the maps more accessible to those who are printing them with either toner or black ink. See monochromatic visuals above.

PTC, TD & TS

Simply put, PTC and TD were altered both for cosmetic purposes (fuller colors) as well as for colorblind compatibility. PTC was made a darker blue and TD was darkened a decent bit to add some distance between them on the monochromatic scale to make them more discernable. The Tropical storm color was changed to also add some distance between it and TD on the monochromatic scale, however, it was also changed because the current color is not compatible with the timeline background color (grey) for people who have red color blindness. Considering that beige and white backgrounds don't work well with the Cat1 color that is required for colorblind reasons, it was preferable to change the TS color and keep the grey timeline. Keep in mind that Featured Articles could be opposed in their candidacy or delisted for accessibility reasons if we don't fix the issues that were brought up.

See Visual Aids for red color blindess

Red Blindness

New Timeline Normal

Saffir-Simpson scale


New Timeline Red Blindness

C1

C1 was largely reverted back to its old color which was close to white in order to increase the distance between it and STS and C2 for monochromatic colorblindness.

C2-C5

C2 through C5 were also largely changed from the current colors with the hope of being closer to the legacy colors (more aesthetically pleasing since they are more familiar) as well as more colorblind compatible than the current colors. It has been mentioned that some of the colors under the current colors, such as purple, are eyesores. The change back to reds and oranges should alleviate that issue and the new colors should be much more accessible for monochromatic colorblindness since the distance between colors on the greyscale is increased.

Provisions

1. The colors above will be adopted in place of the scale which was approved via RfC for maps and will replace the currently used scale for templates and infoboxes.
2. Maps on commons will not be overridden but instead will have new files uploaded via bot since this was not discussed on commons. Some files can't be uploaded by a bot and have to be done manually.
3. Maps will be overridden on commons IF there is a discussion there that supports such measures.
4. Timeline background will change from gray(0.88) to gray(0.92) to be accessible for greyscale.

Feedback

Closing feedback stage and starting formal discussion since no comments have been made during the past five days. NoahTalk 21:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn't want to have to participate here, but the explanation behind certain changes was lacking. Please leave any feedback here (no supports or opposes) for the above proposal. A formal discussion will commence in 1-2 weeks... Likely between July 14-17.NoahTalk 13:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you cannot leave the old/current tropical storm blue shade instead of going to the green? I’m inclined to oppose changing anything that changes that category. United States Man (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: Yes, there are two reasons. The current color is not compatible with timeline backgrounds for red color blindness due to the shade of grey that shows up against the timeline background. It is also very similar to the TD color on greyscale which makes it hard to tell the difference between the two if you either have monochromatic color blindness or are printing the map in black and white. The proposed colors increase the difference between all the colors on grey (monochromatic) scale, while maintaining the accessibility for normal vision and all the other color blindness types. There are a few visual aids that are collapsed. The TS color is not changing to a green color. It would be going from   turquoise blue to   sky blue. The goal is to be similar to the legacy colors while having accessibility. NoahTalk 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That was my bad I was accidentally looking at the STS line below it. I actually do prefer the C5 color in this new proposal. United States Man (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still opposed to any color scheme that involves the current background map. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a slightly more vibrant color red for C5. Something like this   or adjacent shade. Otherwise, the rest of the scale works well on the maps I tested. Supportstorm (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Supportstorm: would you be able to add a visual of how that color would look on maps? NoahTalk 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example Supportstorm (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That color will work and fits in well so I changed it. NoahTalk 02:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Please leave comments pertaining to the ongoing RfC here. NoahTalk 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on the grounds on MOS:ACCESS because this new scale makes the maps and templates more accessible for individuals who have monochromatic colorblindness and also for those who are printing them in black and white. NoahTalk 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which above? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu: I'm still opposed to any color scheme that involves the current background map. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC) NoahTalk 14:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that we actually need new colors (we can't leave out monochromats), this proposal is great for it. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my (and other people's) previous comments. Akbermamps 16:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I think the sections where the hurricane was most severe are a bit clearer in monochromacy with the new proposal. Unfortunately, it is still hard to tell the sub-hurricane sections from the Category 3 and 4 sections in monochromacy, since the sub-hurricane sections use darker colors than Category 1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This scheme satisfies all ACCESS criteria. On maps, the scheme does well being accessible while remaining aesthetically pleasing. Supportstorm (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose having red be Category 5. The lack of variety of hues makes the categories visually difficult to distinguish in normal vision. Purple is used by the NWS here and we should try to best follow what reliable sources do while still satisfying access requirements. Purple is better distinguishable in normal vision from the red and the issue with it with monochromatic vision can be resolved by tweaking the intensity of the color (darkness/lightness). Instead of using reddish hues throughout (I should remind you that a variety of hues is better for the eyes) we should more seriously consider tweaking the purple to be darker. To those who would say that it would then be hard to make out against the background map, the currently proposed red is no good in that regard either. A fair comparison of all the color schemes should also include comparisons against the ocean background.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose + new course – A lingering issue that we've failed to address is how the color schemes interact with the background blue marble map... Until we find a full solution for that this will never truly adhere to ACCESS or we'll just end right back at this discussion because we skipped a step. As such I believe it's in our best interest to ditch the classic blue marble in favor of a simple, grayscale base map—something akin to Open Street Map—that can work with a wider range of colors to satisfy everyone and MOS ACCESS needs. How this would work is beyond my technical understanding, but I firmly believe it's time for the blue marble to go (as much as I love it). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nova Crystallis and Cyclonebiskit: We have tried to look at alternative backgrounds twice in these map discussions and it didn't attract much attention. The color schemes interact just fine with the blue background marble map as stated by others and myself. It works pretty well for monochromatic, which has the darkest shade of any of the schemes. None of the others would have any issues since they are similar to colors that we are already using. If you are referring to interactive maps, then those would be opposed en mass like what happened last time. People have various reasons for not wanting Open Street Maps, most concerning was the argument of false precision. If you are talking about just the background, you would need to get consensus for such a change. The goal of this RfC is to improve the color scheme for the existing map background. If this fails, we are stuck with a scale that can't be printed off in black/white and is inaccessible for people with monochromatic blindness. I would recommend that you both evaluate whether this scale works better overall for accessibility than other one and come up with alternative map background to propose in the meantime. We can hold off implementing anything that is decided here until we know where people stand on an alt map background. There should be a backup plan if most people do not want to change the background from the blue marble to another. NoahTalk 23:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we're hoping and praying we never get a Category 1 going over on the Arabian Peninsula then? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, the humanity! We've been violating WP:ACCESS for longer than some editors have been born![sarcasm] I'd rather get the map and the color scheme right for the long term than supporting a solution that doesn't even work in some areas. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 11:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will not support a change that disadvantages the majority just to satisfy some policy. United States Man (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: Agree with Nova and USM, and I'll note that I don't like being accused of willfully violating guidelines. It's not on me to fix the problems with your preferred solution, and it's certainly not a violation of any guideline to point out where your preferred solution is lacking. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ks0stm: I prefer the purple color for Category 5 regardless of any changes to the background map. "I like it" is not "pointing out where your preferred solution is lacking". 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to original until we can figure out what's going on - The current scale is not a permanent solution. I never really intended for it to be a solution (I was not expecting to be taken seriously (I never am)), and quite frankly, I've gotten a lot of hate for it. I was not consulted before Noah decided to use it in the original "final discussion", and all it's done is open a Pandora's box of problems. I regret stepping in at all.
That being said, these scales aren't good either, the various ideas below this thread are quite frankly sh*t, and we've gone nowhere but down since we've started this whole debate. Here's the truth: Nobody cares! Not a single person outside of this WikiProject and other avid WPers sees it as an issue. Not once has someone complained to me about the old scale— it's all been complaints about the new one! What are we sitting here beating around the bush for when there are no solutions to the perceived problem and nobody will be happy anyway? ~ AC5230 talk 05:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly have to concur with AC5230. All these discussions, stemming back to the original proposal in late 2021, have generated more heat than work. And we still don't have a plan that satisfies accessibility requirements for both track maps and templates that doesn't look terrible for people with full color vision or mild color blindness. I suggest that we stop filing RfCs on milder topics, and first assess all our options and their respective counterarguments. It's almost been a year and we haven't gone anywhere past the completion of the first and initial RfC; and we won't get anywhere if we don't make informed options as a starting point. When we've whittled down our plans to (hopefully) a simple A and B (maybe C), then we can file an RfC that people will actually participate in. No one wants to read a wall of text to make a !vote. Chlod (say hi!) 06:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here as well. All this has focused on satisfying is some stupid requirement when it comes at the cost of an entire community that requires these tracks. No where have i seen anyone worry about the domino effect changing the tracks would have to others. Until we can do what Chold has said or consider a better way at making tracks that satisfy the requirement while also not angering an entire community, we ought to revert to the scale we had prior to this mess starting. HavocPlayz (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is people opposing for reasons not related to what scale itself does and not participating outside RfCs. Quite a few people would oppose for a reason such as wanting a map other than blue marble or IDONTLIKEIT. The other issue is whenever we have tried to hold a discussion that isn't an RfC, we get zero participation and then people complain about what was discussed whenever an RfC is held. I say Revert. It's quite clear that we will likely never come to a solution that most people in this project will agree on. People have mentioned at FACs in the past about this issue and not opposing since we were discussing it, but oh well. They can just delist them now if that's an issue. If you hate what was proposed below, then I suggest trying to make a better solution. It's literally been impossible thus far to satisfy enough people to get a scale through the process for various reasons, many of which didn't even have to do with whether or not the scale actually did the job it was designed to do. I just say Revert, call this done, and let the issue rest. The horse died and no matter how much we flog it, it will not move, so any future discussions are just a waste of everyone's time. NoahTalk 11:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. All this time spent arguing over minutiae has only made things more complicated. The solution doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than we had before. Akbermamps 12:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I feel like the RfC and the resultant discourse has caused more problems than it has fixed, and has resulted in a lot of drama. I think we should first come up with a good solution, and then implement it slowly. However, for the moment, I believe that it would be best to revert the colour scale back to the way it was before March, and then try and find a permanent solution. SolarisPenguin (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Marble Background

Should the current blue marble background for track maps (shown below) be replaced by an alternative background? Said alternative background would be proposed for debate at a later time and date. The goal here is to gauge support for such a change. NoahTalk 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please discuss here. NoahTalk 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean. United States Man (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a track map with a recolored version of c:File:HD 15000 x 6500 Equirectangular Blank Political Map with Oceans Marked in Blue.png here, and apart from some issues, it's good and provides sufficient contrast. It should be noted that new background map must be exactly the same projection (equirectangular) and show the same landmasses as the original Blue Marble map without shifting the view, otherwise the exact positions of TCs will be skewed (like in the example above). Akbermamps 05:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing map We don't need political maps to show the track of tropical cyclones, especially not the ones that lack politically "unimportant" islands like the Lesser (and Greater!) Antilles. Also, the proposed colors would all have to change, since Category 1 and to a lesser extent Category 2 have very poor contrast with a white map. I think that this proposal is just a solution looking for a problem. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could we get around the background contrast issue (whether we change the background or not) by putting a black or white outline around the dots? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that would be the case since the color is contrasting against the outline color rather than directly on the background. Some colors on WP would require white text to be accessible, but that shouldn't be too difficult to do. A more accessible color scheme that utilizes more grey scale could be something like:
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC LC CC PC
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5

Thoughts on the above scale if we were to have some kind of outline on the dots (either black or white depending on what's needed) and/or a new background map? NoahTalk 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Would you be okay with something like this if we are adding white or black outlines to the dots (whichever is needed for a specific color) to make it fit no matter the map background? It would also require changing some text to white on WP, but would keep C5 purple and have grayscale accessibility without being a divergent color scheme. I tried to incorporate a variety of hues here. NoahTalk 03:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For myself, I'm not on board with the changes to TS, STS, C4, and C5. I would support keeping the current colors and will oppose the new colors. United States Man (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Responding to TornadoLGS) You could set the background map to something transparent, then create the same track with --alpha set to 0, add an outline to that, and overlay those on top of each other. I wouldn't support this, however, as the bot will have to do all those steps for every track and will likely cause a lot of problems. Akbermamps 04:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: What exactly don't you like? There are many colors that can't be used period since their color blind versions conflict with the versions of other colors we want to use. It's also difficult to tune them to be different enough on greyscale that you can tell the difference on a map. As JD said above, a variety of hues and shades need to be used, which is what the goal is here.
@Akbermamps: I hate to ask, but would you be able to make a map of this scale on c:File:HD 15000 x 6500 Equirectangular Blank Political Map with Oceans Marked in Blue.png with black outlines to see how all of these things would work out? We could have someone skilled with coding (possibly Chlod) propose a change to the track maker software that would automatically make these outlines occur. NoahTalk 05:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Does this work? Sadly the C1 color is off for some reason even though I put in the right color (bug maybe?) Akbermamps 05:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbermamps: Is it possible for the lines themselves to just be black rather than have an outline or is that a limitation of the trackmaker? Bugs are bound to happen since this changes a lot from the usual map. NoahTalk 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another potential option that exists is simply to replace the trackmaker with a different track generating software that has more capabilities. I'm not sure of what's all out there, but I know there are likely at least a few that are freely available for use. NoahTalk 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the color scheme proposed by Noah on 7 July 2022, since it retains the asthetics of the legacy colors while working for colorblind people. However, if that doesn't work out, I have an alternate solution. Instead of using purple for C5 storms, we could try using black instead. I think black could work well for the highest category of storms if red doesn't work out. Many users, myself included, find the purple used or C5 to be awful, since it doesn't flow well with the rest of the colors. It's very off for the colors to switch from a color that's rather intimidating to a color that looks like something from My Little Pony. Black on the other hand, it arguably more intimidating than red, so it could work for C5 storms. It would still be kinda off seeing red be used for C4s rather than C5s, but it would still work better than having the awful purple color that most of us dislike. The current colors have to go because they don't work for monochromatic people and are arguably worse for them than the legacy colors were. I know that the text would blend into the black color, however we could make the text change to white when the black color is used in the template. I think it would work way better than with the purple color that's extremely unpopular with users. If someone can create a proposal table like the other ones, please show me because I want to know what this would look like for colorblind people. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CriticalMaster95: Sorry for the late reply... I have been rather busy as of late. I think that using black would be too sudden of a shift for a color scale. Below is an example of a non-divergent scale that could be used on maps provided certain color dots are outlined and white text would be displayed when using the C4 and C5 colors in templates.


Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
EX EX EX EX EX
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5

NoahTalk 02:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: The track maker cannot change the line colors as far as I know, but it is possible to have the color scale inverted then invert the output back to "normal" for black lines (though this adds yet another step) Akbermamps 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbermamps: Would it just be better to use a different track maker that can automatically perform these steps then? NoahTalk 14:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: It is possible, but I'd prefer just making do with what we have and changing the background and colors (I think darker maps are good enough, see above). I wouldn't mind a new track maker, though. It's a pain to get working. Akbermamps 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nova Crystallis: Thoughts on this? It uses one of the maps you proposed and has a different color scheme with more hues and a darker purple as JD suggested. This scheme is also not divergent, which could potentially be misleading. Still a work in progress on getting the trackmaker to work with everything. Hopefully, we can just have black lines connecting the dots rather than black outlined grey lines. NoahTalk 12:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, but we should also try using it on other maps so we can see what we can improve. Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at other freely available track makers on github... I saw Track Gen which is a no go since it is basically an easier to use version of our current track maker where nothing can be changed by editors using it since it runs through a website rather than on a person's computer. There is also best tracks which is a possibility. The one that would likely be the best replacement is tropycal, which also labels the lat and lon lines. Both it and best tracks run on lighter maps, outline the dots with black, and have black connecting lines automatically. Tbh I think a replacement would be easier than having everyone change all these items on the current track maker and having to go through a bunch of extra steps each time. Any others that could be suitable? NoahTalk 18:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbermamps: Thoughts or suggestions? NoahTalk 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Again, I'd prefer just changing the map to something dark, tweaking the colors a bit, then having it be done. It's easier than creating an entirely new track maker from scratch, having to debate about outlines, and getting everyone to agree on the new track maker. Akbermamps 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbermamps: The problem is people want our maps to look closer to professional maps by agencies, which use lighter tones for the map itself. We wouldn't have to make an entirely new track maker. We would simply be using a new software to produce the maps. Said software is already developed and works (all of the example softwares I listed are freely available on github + there may be more outside of those that I missed). The map being dark would mean we are still much different from professional maps. The new track maker would simply be able to use a lighter map and black outlines by default. The generated maps using a lighter background also don't look the best since the track maker wasn't designed for this kind of situation. NoahTalk 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nova Crystallis and Jasper Deng: How would you feel about replacing the track maker with another developed github software that uses a lighter map and can add black outlines to the dots automatically? This would likely make the maps look more professional than the demonstration above while allowing the usage of light tones across the map since they are outlined. Would you have any recommendations for a replacement? NoahTalk 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricane Noah: I'd say that that scale is drifting away from the idea of a color scale - from least severe to most severe. (Red. Not purple.) 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat: This scale is actually similar to how greyscale is done for dvorak (flipped actually). The first color is similar to off-white and ends at a grey. The next one starts at white and ends at an even darker color. This allows for more distinguishable grey tones than were shown in prior scales. I kind of used a combo of both the current and proposed colors to make this new scale. It would work quite well with black dot outlines on a light map. NoahTalk 23:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah: So then I think I might be able to support that. I'm all for anything that makes us more accessible. All I really care about is the end of the use of the current color scale. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Track Maker/Map RfC

Consensus is that option C, the existing track maker and blue marble map, is preferred. Andre🚐 23:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which option would be best for both accessibility and from a coding standpoint? NoahTalk 02:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This map uses the blue marble background (for reference)
This map corresponds to option B

Clearly, this project has been divided upon color scales and what needs to be done regarding the maps for some time. We first need to settle what's going to happen regarding the map background and trackmaker before attempting to resolve the issues with our scale. A lighter map would allow more, darker colors to be utilized, however, it also poses problems from a coding standpoint since it would require the current track maker to use additional code for each map that's produced (requires black outlines for dots and lines) and would be rather cumbersome. A new track maker that automatically performs these functions would alleviate that concern but would require different software downloads and take time to get used to. Keeping the blue marble background as is would mean fewer colors could be used on the darker end of the spectrum, but wouldn't cause any additional problems. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately it is up to the project and wiki community to weigh which one is the best. NoahTalk 02:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option A: Use a new trackmaker that's freely available on Github (likely either Tropycal or BestTracks). This trackmaker would utilize a lighter map than blue marble and outline dots with black automatically (connecting lines would also be black).
  • Option B: Keep the existing track maker, but use a map that's lighter than the current blue marble map. Dots and lines would both have to be outlined in order to be accessible. There is a possibility of bugs as pointed out in the above section by Akbermamps.
  • Option C: Keep the existing track maker and the blue marble map without change.

Discussion

Please leave comments here. The outcome of this discussion will be used to determine our next steps. NoahTalk 02:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not supporting anything with a purple color for Category 5. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat: This RfC is not deciding a color scale. This is to determine what kind of map/software we are going to use to produce the tracks. The scale would be decided in the next step (new discussion) following this RfC. NoahTalk 11:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B As before. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C – Much more professional looking map and track. The light blue map looks tacky and will not satisfy the vast majority of readers. United States Man (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C is a much nicer looking map, and I think the simplicity of the blue map would look jarring to viewers. The political boundaries being on the map do not help either. SamBroGaming (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. Per United States Man, it looks more professional. There is no need for political boundaries either in a weather project. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C – the current track map generator produces a more refined/professional track map in my opinion. — Iunetalk 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @United States Man, SamBroGaming, Chicdat, and Iune: If the current blue marble map is kept, would you be okay with there being either black or white outlines added to dots depending on whether they are on land or sea? That should fix any accessibility issues for colors that were presented by Nova (C1 over light sand) and allow us to use more colors through the greyscale since contrast against the ocean wouldn't be an issue anymore. Below is a crudely done example (through pixlr) where outlines were added to illustrate what exactly I mean by that. An actual map wouldn't have as much overlapping of outlines as this example does, but I think it shows what's possible. Outline colors could either be based on land or sea (like what's below) or whether or not the dot color contrasts enough with the map background (ie all outlines would be black except for ones surrounding dark-colored dots). Thoughts? NoahTalk 00:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like that's definitely a concept worth exploring with potential. This does seem like it could be the solution SamBroGaming (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer only putting it on the troubling colors. Otherwise it looks excessive. So maybe only put outlines along the C1/C2 dots, unless there are other color clashes in other parts of land. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicdat, we have to be uniform in our application of changes. We can't simply add it here and there since the maps need to have a uniform, coordinated appearance. Two ideas I gave were to either do it as shown below or add black outlines to every dot except those that dont contrast well enough against the blue ocean (they would get the white outline). You may think it's excessive, but it would honestly look worse to outline only specific colors. We would be drawing unwarranted attention to outlined colors and taking away from the rest in that case. NoahTalk 14:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option C: Lighter maps require darker colors for the track to stand out, and darker colors are harder to distinguish from each other and would move accessibility backwards. Outlines look clunky, and they are basically useless at the scale where track maps are shown on articles. Akbermamps 15:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to do something since it has been proven by Nova that even the C1 color can be inaccessible if it's over a place like Arabia. I don't think outlines look all that bad if you use them a map like the above where only the dots would require them. If we keep blue marble and don't do outlines, then we simply have to avoid any and all colors that conflict with any given portion of the map. I think if done correctly, that outlines could work well. Other track softwares add them to the dots and it looks just fine. NoahTalk 01:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other options exist, including using a darker map that I mentioned several times and wouldn't have the issues that other options have (concept: [15] [16]). Why are we making things more complicated? Akbermamps 04:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That map fails WP:ACCESS due to contrast. 3.00 is minimum acceptable contrast for graphics.
  • Image 1 C5: 1.98 contrast w/land
  • Image 2 TD: 1.46 contrast w/land
  • Image 2 TS: 2.43 contrast w/land
  • Image 2 C2: 2.69 contrast w/land
  • Image 2 C3: 1.8 contrast w/land
The other issue is if we want to use a dot color darker than the current ones we have in order to use more greyscale, we can't because of contrast issues. NoahTalk 09:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so do maps without outlines and the regular blue marble, or dots to their outlines, or outlines to the land behind them. It's (probably) impossible to fully satisfy the contrast guidelines for both color scales and backgrounds, so it's best to just minimize the losses. Dark grayscale maps won't have to deal with a color being too close to a certain shade of sea/land when looked at by colorblind people, and if that means having slightly less contrast against a gray background, then so be it. Also, WP:ACCESS only applies to text on a background, not to images.
Kind of unrelated to above, but to add on to my thoughts on outlines - they just can't be feasibly implemented. If outlines over sea are going to be white and those over land are going to be dark, how will the track maker know when to use either? Will it have to parse through coordinates to know if a point is over land? How will it deal with dark/light patches? And if it's done manually, how will we change every single track? Akbermamps 11:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACCESS uses the WCAG guidelines, which has a Graphical Objects and User Interface Components portion that requires a 3.0 contrast between the background and any foreground colors. I gave a bunch of different options below for outlines. The white over sea, black over land is just one of many possible solutions. If I am being honest, the best solution is to just use black as the default and white only in cases where we absolutely have to. Theoretically, with light/dark patches, it could be done by contrast level (easier to do by whether it is land or sea since the sea for the most part doesnt vary for our maps). As for the sea/land one, I assume if the color is anything different than the blue color of the ocean, it could set it to black. If we can change the track maker to do some kind of automated processing for this, we wouldn't have to manually do anything. It would simply be an update made to the trackmaker. NoahTalk 11:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map Dot Outlines & Template Text Colors RfC (Closed)

Withdrawn since nobody voted. Moving to revert color changes and end discussions. NoahTalk 11:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Which solution is the best for both accessibility and aesthetics? NoahTalk 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One possible solution to the lack of colors available to us as a result of map background colors is to use an outline on map dots. With a wide-enough outline, this would, hopefully, provide a sufficiently noticeable contrast between itself and the background as well as itself and the dot color, allowing for accessibility even when using colors that would normally blend in with the background. There is a range of possible solutions to the problem, depending on what everyone personally thinks is best. Below is an example of option B, which is simply a crudely done example just to highlight what outlines could look like. The outlines wouldn't overlap like in the image shown below (which was made in a photo editor) since one dot would be positioned over another if they are too close to each other. NoahTalk 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map shown at default track-map scaling (250 pixels)


Option A

  • All dark-colored map dots will use a white outline when the contrast between the dot color and the map is less than 4.50
  • All other map dots will use a black outline
  • All text in templates where a colored background is present will be black unless the contrast between the black text and the colored background would be less than 4.50. In those cases where the contrast is less than 4.50, the text will be converted to white color.

Option B (illustrated above)

  • All map dots will use a white outline over darker portions of the map
  • All map dots will use a black outline on lighter background regions
  • All text in templates where a colored background is present will be black unless the contrast between the black text and the colored background would be less than 4.50. In those cases where the contrast is less than 4.50, the text will be converted to white color.

Option C

  • Only map dots with problematic colors (contrast less than 4.5) will use either a black or white outline (white over dark sea and black over the lighter land or vice versa depending on the map we choose) - general idea suggested by Chicdat
  • All text in templates where a colored background is present will be black unless the contrast between the black text and the colored background would be less than 4.50. In those cases where the contrast is less than 4.50, the text will be converted to white color.

Option D

  • No map dots will be outlined
  • All text in templates where a colored background is present will be black unless the contrast between the black text and the colored background would be less than 4.50. In those cases where the contrast is less than 4.50, the text will be converted to white color.
  • NOTE: This means that only colors that don't conflict with any portion of the map (either the sand, green land, or sea) can be used. C1 color would be a no-go, for instance, due to its proven conflict over Arabia.

Option E

  • No map dots will be outlined
  • All text in templates will remain black
  • NOTE: This means that only colors that don't conflict with any portion of the map (either the sand, green land, or sea) can be used. C1 color would be a no-go, for instance, due to its proven conflict over Arabia.

Discussion

Please leave comments here regarding the usage map outlines. The outcome of this RfC in conjunction with the RfC above will be vital in determining what kind of scale to use. The thickness of the outlines would be determined later. NoahTalk 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the black outlines over land, but I think that the outlines over sea are unnecessary. They just come off as ugly and cluttered. Speaking of cluttered, if a storm stalls I don't think the lines should overlap, rather the stronger dot gets priority over weaker ones. Vortex4020 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex4020: The lines wouldnt overlap as shown. That image was created in an image editor rather than the track maker since I can't use the track maker. One dot would overtake the other one with it's outline being on top (I believe the track maker gives priority to the dot based on when it occurred ie later time/date gets priority). Outlines would be needed over the sea depending on the sea's color and the dot's color (ie light sea and light dot or dark sea and dark dot). In terms of blue marble, options are to have black as the default for all and white only as needed for contrast reasons (Option A), have black on land and white over sea as shown in the image (Option B), Only problematic colors get either a white or black outline for contrast reasons (Option C), no outlines for both Options D and E. NoahTalk 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert to the old colors

... and immediately have a discussion about other options. It has been said repeatedly that the changes were too hastily made, and the discussions also had a lot of canvassing and other issues. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the agreement was to go ahead and revert. United States Man (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: This discussion has been on the closure noticeboard for a while and is simply awaiting closure by a neutral party. NoahTalk 21:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having someone who doesn't even know what is going on close it after it sitting there for 6 months is a great idea... United States Man (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I have spent a few weeks reading this discussion in bits and pieces, as an uninvolved editor looking to help close the discussion. As I understand it, the desire is to adhere to WP:MOSACCESS, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus here for the new color scheme. Might I propose that there should be a new proposal and additional discussions on how to make the color scheme adhere to the accessibility guidelines and policy. It's impossible for someone to close this discussion because it seems to have not reached a consensus and nothing was really resolved, but I don't think it would make sense to just archive the whole RFC either. Would you want to simply withdraw the closure request and restart a new discussion on the status quo ante, what would need to change about it, why and how and take it from there? That seems more constructive? Andre🚐 23:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the sub-RFC above as "Option C". Hopefully that helps. I can mark this as done if that works for you. and archive the old part. Andre🚐 23:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhelpful closure

So despite us all ultimately agreeing to revert to the November 2021 original color scheme, some outsider has apparently ruled over that. Why don't we establish a clear agreement to revert to those colors now. Pinging users in above discussion: @Chicdat and Hurricane Noah: United States Man (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I closed the discussion as "no consensus," which would be the status quo. Andre🚐 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus in an above section to revert to the original color scheme. I now realize that you may not have been looking at that particular part but at the part concerning the track maps, which seemed to lean toward Option C. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the track map portion as option C, and the first and second discussion header is a "no consensus" to change the color scheme or map, which I believe would not be a problem to you since you opposed the proposal and it failed to gain consensus for its implementation. Andre🚐 00:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed changing it further. I clearly supported reverting to the original. Obvious that was missed in your careful review. United States Man (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding. There was roughly an equal amount of support and opposition for the proposal, so it failed to achieve consensus. Therefore, whatever the status quo before the disputed changes should be restored per standard procedure, since the change under discussion did not have consensus. Andre🚐 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he is trying to say is that the initial discussion in that top section ended in July and then a new comment was posted in September to revert back the original scale, which everyone who posted after agreed to, including numerous people who posted in July in support of the change and myself the proposer. In this case, would the technicality that the second round of comments were not sectioned differently from the first mean a new discussion would have to take place to revert to the old scale? NoahTalk 01:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all. The discussion with support to revert is redundant, since it would be revert anyway due to the lack of consensus to change from the initial RFC. However, if you would like, I can close that part as well. Andre🚐 01:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No... we weren't meaning to revert to the status quo, but rather to revert the changes that went through in February as a result of another RfC so we would be back to the legacy scale that was in place for well over 10 years. The changes that were supposed to have gone through after that RfC were stuck in limbo where they were half implemented as a result of disagreements that occurred after the first changes were made. NoahTalk 01:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And where is this discussion with a supposed consensus to do that? Because I don't see that here. Andre🚐 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was the discussion where the initial changes were approved and then went through before being objected to. People stating revert to the original in the discussion above were meaning to revert those changes. NoahTalk 01:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start a new RFC to propose the revert or change or whatever it is you would like. There isn't a way to close the current discussion in a consensus to do what you're asking for here, and it's also not proper to litigate the closure in this way. I do not read a consensus there to overturn a past RFC. Andre🚐 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely expected this to be the case given how past closures have occurred years ago. Organization of a discussion is key and it is the failure on our part to properly organize this that has resulted in the no consensus. NoahTalk 01:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you come up with a narrow, simple, easy to understand change and then post a new RFC after sufficient discussion on what you want to answer. If you make it a simple and easily digestible option or set of limited options, and really explain the pros and cons, you will have a better chance of a working consensus. Andre🚐 01:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this. I considered trying to close this but gave up after being unable to make heads or tails of what was going on; from some of your comments, it seems none of you really do either. There's only so much a closer can do with a messy discussion. Frankly, Andrevan deserves a barnstar for the amount of effort he put into trying to understand everything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Full-scale reversion

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

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

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

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

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

2023 Color RfCs

Next steps

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

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

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

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


Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression


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


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


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

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

I'm not supporting any changes to the color scale at this time. We just reverted the first ones. Maybe take a long break and think about it instead of tossing out new proposals every other day. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man:Others should come up with suitable replacements and then we will narrow down the field. Once we get down to around 3 solid options, we will hold a RfC to decide which one to implement. NoahTalk 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about you just drop it and leave the old colors. More users seemed satisfied with that than all the previous alternatives. United States Man (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because both colorblind and non-colorblind users can't tell apart the old colors. Like me, for example. Also, I'm not exactly sure where you got this idea that everybody thinks nothing needs to change with the color scheme. May I remind you that there was a discussion early on that had consensus that this needed to be changed. Otherwise we wouldn't be here right now. WhittleMario (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm not really sure who you are (because I haven't seen you before), but myself and many others have been able to easily distinguish between the colors for years. You say there was a "consensus", but that initial discussion was admittedly canvassed and almost resulted in a block for several users (including Hurricane Noah). Many longtime users, such as myself, were not even privy to much of the conversation that was taking place offline and reached borderline harassment. So no, there was no consensus. The only consensus was to unanimously revert the ill-timed half-done changes in the first place. So again, I believe Hurricane Noah should leave well enough alone for a while and refrain from continuing to act in haste. United States Man (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put up the first of hopefully many more proposals to come that we will look at, make adjustments to, and later discuss to see which ones will progress further. This isn't acting in haste, but rather simply putting something up to start the proposal and adjustment phase of this process. As I said before, we will hopefully get several more proposals that we will eventually whittle down to about 3 and then those will be presented to the project in a RfC to decide which one is implemented. No future storm article or seasonal list will pass FAC or FLC if we decide to do nothing. Should racism in the United States have been ignored because whites thought the behavior was acceptable at the time? Hell no. Ignoring accessibility issues when we are aware of them would be flat out discrimination towards those affected. NoahTalk 02:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And many others have not, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Just because you can see the colors perfectly fine doesn't mean everyone can. Do you think I'm lying about it for some reason? I have nothing to gain from that. All I want is to be able to tell apart the colors in the article. Now, I suggest you drop this before you burst a blood vessel trying to explain why your personal color preferences should dictate Wikipedia's accessibility policy. WhittleMario (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all the tables have text in them to denote what category they are, no? That was done for accessibility. As long as one can read, there should be no problem differentiating. And I am actually very calm, but you seem to be the one getting excited. United States Man (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we restore the old color in all tropical cyclone season articles. (Summary and Effect) now that we've decided to reverted? HurricaneEdgar 13:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneEdgar: The effects should have reverted automatically. Try clearing your cache. The timelines can be reverted, yes. NoahTalk 13:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have an obligation to fix the problems that have been presented. This project would be castigated even further by the community if were to openly refuse to fix the problems and attempt to satisfy ACCESS. That would be grounds for demoting every FA and FL we have that use these maps. NoahTalk 02:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ACCESS is an important guideline, and we should always follow it. John (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhittleMario and John: I wasn't suggesting we ignore WP:ACCESS, but I'm increasingly convinced that we will never find a good color scheme that 100% meets it, so we might have to settle for a color scheme that mostly satisfies it. Heck, if we didn't care about aesthetics at all, we might as well go for a simple grayscale color scheme and change font colors (black to white) accordingly for templates. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be less accessible than normal since we can't utilize enough of the greyscale to make it work. NoahTalk 20:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, but it still has the same issues as the old scale in that categories 2-4 are very close. I will say that it is marginally better than the current scale. Do you have an example for a map usage? WhittleMario (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhittleMario: Is it any better since I implemented changes to C2-5? NoahTalk 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah and United States Man: Much better, although I also want to say I prefer United States Man's scale. It seems like the best option should be one that produces minimal changes to the old scale to make it accessible, and I believe that theirs is it. (And also, I'd like to apologize to them for last night. I was already in a weird mood and I guess I snapped. I'm gonna read WP:CIVIL again so I make sure it gets through to my brain that my behavior wasn't acceptable.) WhittleMario (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference between the scales. I simply changed the lower end because people don't like a diverging color scale since it gives an impression that the middle is the least intense while the two ends are extremes. That was their argument presented last time. I do have to say I believe this is about as accessible as we can get overall. I increased the accessibility for everything except monochromatic which incidentally may have gotten a slight decrease. There's not much we can do about that though since we have to juggle five different vision types. This is definitely much more accessible than the legacy colors and the scale that was just reverted. I am curious to see what other proposals may come about. It will be up to everyone as to when we move on from this phase. NoahTalk 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One simple comment— we should think about how the colours present when Dark Mode is turned on across Wikimedia projects.  🐱💬 14:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Supportstorm: Would you be able to create maps for the two scales below? NoahTalk 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll get some examples uploaded. Supportstorm (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: Seeing how it looked on the map, I opted to make the C1 color a bit lighter in proposal 1. NoahTalk 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: Would you have time to create maps for the new proposals that have been added? NoahTalk 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Supportstorm (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(CLOSED) Potential Replacement Scales: Development (Phase 1)

Please add your own potential replacement scale at the bottom of the section with the appropriate formatting. Others can leave feedback on your scale so it may be improved and refined. We are NOT making any decisions at this point in terms of a replacement. We are simply gathering and developing multiple options. NoahTalk 14:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else would like to propose their own scale to replace the existing one, please do so below. The plan is to keep this phase open until 23:59 UTC December 31st NoahTalk 04:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given there seems to be some confusion, I would like to reiterate that we are accepting NEW proposals and feedback. We are NOT making any decisions on individual proposals or groups of proposals here. This is simply the time and place for people to hone their ideas given feedback from project. I ask that you please not support or oppose since we aren't deciding anything at this time. NoahTalk 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ANNOUNCEMENT: One month remains for the Development Phase. No further proposals will be accepted following December 31st. NoahTalk 19:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TWO weeks remain in the development phase. All proposals must be posted by the end of this year UTC. NoahTalk 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This a final reminder that there are only four days remaining to make any new proposals or change existing ones. No further proposals or changes may occur after that time. NoahTalk 17:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current/Legacy Scale
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy

Proposal (1) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression


Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression


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


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


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
  • Lighter shades may be required in templates/infoboxes if we use black text or we could use white text in cases where black wouldn't work for AA.
  • Should solve accessibility problems for all types of vision
  • Note that we can't use extremely light shades of colors due to the sand over Arabia, which is why C1 is now a darker yellow.
  • We also can't use extremely dark shades of colors due to the sea color. The Cat 5 color is about the darkest that is possible for graphical components.
Feedback

Please leave feedback related to improving the scale here. NoahTalk 14:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't desirable, as darker colors should be used for weaker disturbances and lighter colors for tropical storms. United States Man (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it this way since people have complained in the past about diverging color scales and them giving a misconception about intensity (ie C1 being weakest). To be honest, I don't really have a preference either way. NoahTalk 15:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts now that colors have been put to a map? NoahTalk 12:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am less in favor now that I've seen it on a map. We should be using a new scale that is as little change as possible to satisfy longtime readers. United States Man (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of the long term readers argued for a scale like this since it isn't divergent, which is why it is here. NoahTalk 13:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best proposal I have seen to date. 2A02:C7E:4C5:8100:F126:8DE7:79E5:13FA (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deuteranomaly; this is my favorite of them all. It's going to be impossible to satisfy everybody, but I think the position that nothing should be changed because it annoys a few users is just absurd. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 04:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal (2)

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

Feedback concerning proposal 2 here. United States Man (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: I changed the color for C1 a bit in the first one to improve its contrast against C2. Just wanted to let you know. I didn't want to just up and change your proposal. NoahTalk 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly prefer this proposal over the first. The depression color being darker than storm makes sense. I do think the C5 color is too dark against the ocean color so the shade could stand to be a few shades lighter. Supportstorm (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: The only problem you run into is that it would be decreasing the contrast between C4 and C5, which would make it more difficult to discern the two. The only option may be to shift it away from pure red, more towards pink. See how   and   perform. The first option is a lighter red and the second a lighter pinkish red. NoahTalk 02:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't consider C4 being that close. The proposal C5 is still passible. That pink color is about as dark and personally less appealing when I tested it in the track program. Supportstorm (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see you edit your comment with the new color. The first pink is better than the second and visually an improvement over the proposal C5. How much does changing to that shade of pink decrease the contrast of it and C4? Supportstorm (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: I would check the scale in proposal one to see how it performs against the map background. I have updated it to reflect a different C5 and it also has a lighter C1. NoahTalk 03:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be too close to C4. NoahTalk 12:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion looks better than the older one, hoever when looking at the Hurricane track the C5 colour looks weird on the blue marble (I dont have colour blindness hoever the reddish colour blends with the blue marble a bit).Is it posible to make it more diffrent from the blue marble while also making it contrast better with other colours? Chantal434542507 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really possible to do so while satisfying ACCESS for the monochromatic portion. If we make the C5 lighter, it would decrease monochromatic contrast and contrast for all other visions. If we make it a different color and lighter, it would still affect monochromatic contrast. Needless to say, any other color would have its own set of issues. NoahTalk 12:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this is the best one so far. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 04:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we use the lighter C1 color in this proposal (the one I added to proposal 1)? I think it does a better job in terms of contrast with C2. NoahTalk 12:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one and Proposal 3 are my prefered. I do not have my own proposal to offer. --DJ Cane (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 2 looks okay. I would prefer that one. Animem 1 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is my preferred proposal as it maintains the spirit of the existing color scheme while working to better satisfy WP:ACCESS. — Iunetalk 21:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this one the most as well. I'm used to lighter colors for TS intensity, and a darker color for TD intensity, whether it's Unisys, the NHC maps, or longstanding tradition here on Wiki. The dark red for C5 looks good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Chantal434542507's concerns about the lack of contrast with the Blue Marble background. A way of getting around that would be to ditch Blue Marble as the track map generator background, but that historically has been a can of worms nobody wants to open. Titoxd(?!?) 03:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually did have that discussion and it was clear that the project didn't want to change the background to a lighter map. I think whatever we end up doing will have some issues regardless, but it will be a large improvement over the existing scheme. NoahTalk 11:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (3)

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

This one and the one below it are just variations based upon color shading. I still like the above two much better, but it doesn't hurt to see a few options. I will leave any future options up to everyone else. NoahTalk 23:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is OK because it gives some variations of the colors. Thingofme (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (4) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

Again, as in proposal 1, this isn't desirable since the darker colors should represent depressions and lighter for storms. United States Man (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal (5) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

Throwing in my attempt at a scale with a high contrast cat 5. – atomic𓅊7732 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I think tropical storms should be colored blue. Thingofme (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose. This scale is highly undesirable in all aspects. United States Man (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see what others think. Decisions will not take place until the elimination phase. I will be sending out an "all-call" to the project later tomorrow to inform people that proposals are welcomed. NoahTalk 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i get the point with he high contrast cat 5 but someone that is not colorblind it looks like a weak hurricane in my opinion Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a non-inutitive color gradient. In most cases, before seeing a key, viewers will tend to assume that redder, darker, and/or more saturated colors represent a more intense storm. The light sequence of light pastels used for Categories 3, 4, and 5 carry the exact opposite implication. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: We aren't making a decision at this point. There will be an elimination phase following the December 31st deadline for the proposal phase. NoahTalk 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of this. I'm not opposed to a white/light-colored chip for cat 5, and I believe others have used a similar look for highest-end storms, successfully, for many years. The other colors are distinct for me—but the progression of colors seems scattershot and incoherent. With this scale I'd be checking the legend repeatedly as I try to decipher a map. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 08:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be really honest, I like the color gradient for the Category 5 button and all, but I would have to oppose it mainly because it looks a bit undesirable for either colorblind or not. The colors for the rest look very distracting in my opinion. Animem 1 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nah, tropical storms should be colored blue, why should we consider Category 5 hurricanes blue? Sarrail (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal (6) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression


Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression


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


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


Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

I may agree with the change as it shows the difference between colors of the scale even fully colorblind people cannot distinguish between a TS and Cat 5. Thingofme (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thingofme: Were you intending to comment on proposal one or is this supposed to be a different proposal? NoahTalk 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm I see you arent the one who added this in. NoahTalk 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CarterStormTracking: Is this section a placeholder for a different proposal? NoahTalk 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ye i was working on my proposal CarterStormTracking (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
its finished now CarterStormTracking (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CarterStormTracking: Monochromatic shouldnt have any colors (other than gray shades) btw. It is only grayscale (varying shades between black and white). NoahTalk 15:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thats because i used blue cone monochromacy CarterStormTracking (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you can change that if this does get accepted CarterStormTracking (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may give support again because it gives clear contrast between categories. Also, P3 and P6 are two of my best choices. Thingofme (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, btw i fixed the monochorme CarterStormTracking (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The green color for TS is undesirable. Thus I wouldn't support this proposal. United States Man (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal (7) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors

These are proposed colors for tropical cyclone categories with storms of category 3 intensity is orange, category 4 is red, and category 5 is purple.

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

Copied from User:Allen2/sandbox/Tropical Cyclone Color RfC on the behalf of Allen2. Color blind colors will be added as soon as possible. NoahTalk 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal (8) - Eliminated

Proposal was eliminated during the Elimination Phase. NoahTalk 17:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed Colors

A slight difference to tropical storm color that will be light green instead of cyan.

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

Copied from User:Allen2/sandbox/Tropical Cyclone Color RfC on the behalf of Allen2. Color blind colors will be added as soon as possible. NoahTalk 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal (9)

Proposed Colors

Throwing this one out there at the last minute. It's a tweak of another proposal presented by Titoxd last year, worked on by me and a few others. All colors should be clearly differentiable in their original state, as well as across three forms of colorblindness. The monochrome colors are very similar, but other editors have mentioned how impossible it is to satisfy all four categories already. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Image comparison
Normal Vision
Protanopia
Deuteranopia
Tritanopia
Monochromacy
Feedback

I opened the RfC for the elimination phase, but any additional proposals can be added and considered before this hour is up. NoahTalk 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(CLOSED) Elimination (Phase 2)

This phase will commence sometime in early 2023, following the end of the proposal phase. More details will arrive at the end of the proposal phase. NoahTalk 04:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any changes to the current scheme, per United States Man. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapeVerdeWave: Replacement isn't optional at this point. Pandora's box was opened and it can't be sealed. If we don't replace the scale with an accessible one, there would be wide ranging consequences for our project, many of which can't be discerned at this point. I will tell you that any FAC for an article using these maps could be opposed on accessibility grounds and existing FAs delisted since this is part of the MOS. The problem has been acknowledged by many across the various discussions and in other venues (I did see mention in CycloneBiskit's FAC) and thus we are obligated to fix it to the best of our ability. Not doing so would be blatant discrimination and could possibly bring even more shame to this project. Everyone has the chance to propose their own replacement and help others improve theirs. USM, Myself, Atomic, and Carter have all proposed replacements. I believe the goal between what USM and I have proposed is largely to keep it similar in spirit to the old scale while doing what needs to be done in terms of color contrasts for color blind issues. The first phase will be open until the end of this year, so people can continue to add new proposals and feedback. This should be the way to move forward and put the issue to rest once and for all since there will be many proposals up from everyone for debate rather than one which was the issue as to why we had lack of progress. The best proposal as determined by the project will replace the legacy colors. NoahTalk 15:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about?

It has been established through prior discussions that our color scale (legacy colors) failed MOS:ACCESS by hindering the ability of color-blind individuals to differentiate between colors in tables, infoboxes, timelines, and track maps. While the prior colors that had been partially implemented did a good job of eliminating the issue of red, blue, and green color blindness, it has been brought up that these colors are not the best for those with monochromatic color blindness. As can be seen currently, several colors in the color scale look very close to one another or can't be easily differentiated between one another between normal vision and the various types of colorblindness. This isn't acceptable for accessibility reasons and it is our duty to correct it before we implement the color changes on a broader scale. In order to make the scale acceptable for monochromatic color blindness accessibility, more of the grey scale must be utilized by various colors. Considering we are limited on what colors we can pick that match up with the map background, we are limited on how much we can change the scale overall to suit color blindness issues. We need to satisfy MOS:ACCESS to the best of our ability. That does not mean bending over backwards, but we must make a decent effort to correct the glaring issues that have been brought up in the quite lengthy prior discussions on this topic.

This is why we have been discussing proposals above for a new scale over the past couple of months. The goal is for the project to finally resolve the issues at hand. Since everyone has had the opportunity to make proposals and give feedback to help others improve their scales, we should see some kind of solution out of this discussion. In terms of this phase, the elimination phase is exactly as implied. The discussion will commence on January 1 with the goal of narrowing down our options to just the top 3 proposals. In the meantime, please continue to feel free to make proposals and help others out with theirs. You have until 23:59 UTC on December 31. Have a Merry Christmas! NoahTalk 02:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IMHO you're overbending WP:DONOTDISRUPT to its maximum, and in my homewiki you would have been blocked for a long time already. There is no need to change anything because of the color scheme in the tropical weather articles does not transport any information for itself. I mean, it is written explicitely in an article that a storm is a category 3 hurricane or a tropical storm only. The colours make the article prettier or maybe not, but they aren't needed at all. That is the same for the colors in infoboxes, navigation elements, table and maps. You're waging a war nobody is interest in. Stop that! Stop wasting our time and let the issue go. Besides, you have a right to leave. Matthiasb (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With this statement, you clearly lack an understanding of what has been going on these past several months in regard to the outcomes of the discussions and what disruptive editing actually is. Virtually every large-scale discussion attempting to change the scale ended in no consensus, with the exception of the consensus from one that we repealed before the start of this latest discussion. That clearly indicates that many people do care about this issue. Even amongst those who have opposed prior single-proposal discussions, a decent number have admitted that problems exist but felt a different solution was required. Considering there hasn't been a real consensus either way, continually attempting to seek a solution is not disruptive editing. What would be disruptive is continuing to push one way when there's a clear consensus against it. What's written in an article doesn't matter when it comes to images we are producing that convey location, time, and intensity at said location/time. We are required to make anything we produce accessible for normal vision as well as for color blind folks per the EN wiki manual of style and resolution set forth by the WMF. That simply means fixing the scale to the best of our ability so as to make it accessible for those with color blindness. Considering the maps rely solely on colors to indicate the intensity at a specific point, we need to make them accessible. While this isn't the case with the other items you mention, we want to keep things consistent across the board which is why proposals are to change the colors for every template as well as the maps. There have been many people here and in prior discussions that have complained about issues with our color scale, many of whom admit to having some form of color blindness. I don't know how much more evidence you need to be convinced that an actual problem exists and needs to be fixed. NoahTalk 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this RfC page was created BECAUSE people wanted to continue the discussion as can be seen in the comments on the archive page that led to the repeal of the colors back to the original state. This RfC was designed with the intent of giving everyone the chance to make their own solution to the problems that were laid out, and be the end-all to this debate that has been going on for over a year now. This isn't a single scale being proposed as a replacement. Each potential solution proposed here will be included once the actual RfC starts in January. This represents the collective effort of the whole weather project and will be a group decision. It is hoped that the best solution here will be implemented as the replacement scale sometime later in this upcoming year. Considering how much effort has been put into creating proposals here, I have to say that is quite clear many care about what is going on. We have an obligation to the people who have expressed that there are problems (and those who haven't) to make our articles and our self-produced maps/charts as accessible as possible. NoahTalk 01:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC (1) - Elimination

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reviewing the discussion below, as well as the discussion above, it is clear that Proposal 2, Proposal 3, and Proposal 9 have the broadest support with the least opposition, and in fact are the only three with net positive support. There was not enough discussion about changing the text color to make any judgement on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which THREE color scheme proposals above best satisfy MOS:ACCESS, are aesthetically pleasing, and should proceed to the final selection process? There are 9 proposals above and only 3 will be chosen here to proceed to the final selection process. The table within each of the proposals should give a good idea of how accessible the colors are for various types of color blindness. A map for normal vision is shown to give an idea of how the scale would look against the map background. Please note that Potential Tropical Cyclone and Severe Tropical Storm colors are infobox/template only and do not appear on maps. Additionally, links are not allowed on colored backgrounds per prior RfC so any colors only need to contend with black text. NoahTalk 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please discuss which proposals should move on to the final selection. Please feel free to elaborate on your thoughts. NoahTalk 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything that fails on accessibility should be eliminated first. I have read through the discussion, and it is not clear whether this has been done already by the contributors, but I get the impression it has not, so I am assuming at this point that they are not all equally accessible.
  • Assessment of accessibility is, or should be, a technical matter which can be objectively measures. That is a job for an expert. Do we have access to one or more experts who can make an objective assessment? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an objective way to measure the contrast between colors and the map background or text color, but not between the colors themselves since they would be too similar to each other to pass any kind of regular contrast test. That essentially means that any kind of accessibility for the contrast between the colors is going to be subjective. NoahTalk 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 1 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Fail AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    ----
    Proposal 2 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Fail AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    ----
    Proposal 3 -
    PTC Color - Fail AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Fail AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    ----
    Proposal 4 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Fail AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Fail AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Here are the objective assessments for the remaining four scale proposals. NoahTalk 02:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • AA is the minimum required for accessibility, and normal text is taken as black unbolded text. We have the option of using white text or an alternate, slightly lightened color shade in templates/infoboxes if desired in order to make a scale pass AA normal text if the color change wouldn't be too much. My focus here is on graphical components. I have done 5-9 below from an objective and subjective accessibility point.
    Proposal 5 -
    PTC Color - Fail AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Subjective assessment - Issue I see is that Deuteranopic looks quite similar at C3/C4 and monochromatic has a similar problem.
    ----
    Proposal 6 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Fail AA normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, Potential to fail AA graphical over light green terrain (eg Central America)
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Subjective assessment - C3 and C4 are very close together and thus are difficult to differentiate between on the map at normal vision and for the various color blind types. There is virtually no contrast at the monochromatic level for these two values.
    ----
    Proposal 7 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Subjective assessment - This one performs well for normal vision on maps, however, there is not much contrast between C4 and C5 for Tritanopic and monochromatic.
    ----
    Proposal 8 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Subjective assessment - This one performs well for normal vision on maps, however, there is not much contrast between C4 and C5 for Tritanopic and monochromatic. Same as above.
    ----
    Proposal 9 -
    PTC Color - Pass AA Normal text
    TD Color - Pass AA Normal text, Pass AA Graphical
    TS Color - Pass AA Normal Text, pass AA graphical
    STS Color - Pass AA Normal Text
    C1 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C2 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C3 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C4 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    C5 Color - Pass AA Normal text, pass AA graphical
    Subjective assessment - Performs well in all aspects except for the monochromatic contrast at C4/C5. NoahTalk 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all these scales considered, I do not see the text accessibility as an issue currently unless we can't reach an agreement on using either a lighter shade in templates/infoboxes or white text as needed. Looking solely at the objective graphical portion, I would say Proposal 6 should be eliminated since the green would clash with the background of the map quite heavily since a majority of the land is a green hue. Not to mention the fact that subjectively, there is little contrast between the C3/C4. NoahTalk 02:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eliminate: Proposals 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
      • Proposal 1: Doesn't seem aesthetically pleasing to me with changing the shades of the colors at the lower end of the scale but then again I put it out there just to see what people thought.
      • Proposal 4: Doesn't seem aesthetically pleasing to me with changing the shades of the colors at the lower end of the scale but then again I put it out there just to see what people thought.
      • Proposal 5: I would have to agree with TAW that the color scheme is far too aggressive for me to approve of it.
      • Proposal 6: See above reply by me for rationale.
      • Proposal 7: Very little contrast between C4/C5 on tritanopic and monochromatic, which hinders accessibility.
      • Proposal 8: Very little contrast between C4/C5 on tritanopic and monochromatic, which hinders accessibility. Same with TS and C1 on tritanopic. Personally, I don't like the fact that the shades don't seem to have any clear direction and yo-yo around from light to dark to light to dark.
    • Keep: Proposals 2, 3, 9
    • Proposal 9 does a good job in all areas except monochromatic at C4/C5. I believe proposals 2 and 3 to be of similar quality and thus why I chose to keep them as well.
    NoahTalk 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a colourblind redditor, it's worth noting that the contrast should really be assessed at the same scale as they'll be used. i.e. I can differentiate a larger patch of two colours more easily than a smaller patch. My only !vote is that I struggle most with #5 at this scale. I also wonder if another option would be possible than using colours? i.e. could the dots be different shapes or sizes? Or have a texture fill or pattern of some sort? That's the only really accessible option for me. JeffUK 20:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JeffUK: Shapes can't happen because we already use shapes to communicate whether a storm is tropical, subtropical, or extratropical. Size would be an issue because sometimes the dots get very clustered when a storm doesn't move much and the information would be lost due to dot overlap. Textures and patterns are likely not compatible with the software used to create the maps without extensive coding changes. Any patterns like these would also likely be hard to discern at the scale we use in articles so colors are the best option. We have discussed this for well over a year now and there really isn't any other feasible method than to adjust the colors used in the scale. As for maps, I can see about getting some color blind versions uploaded, but it may take a bit to do all of them since it would be 36 images for the proposals + 4 more for the current scale. NoahTalk 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added all maps. NoahTalk 00:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate: Proposals 1 and 4 because the switch to using our traditional TD color for TS would be jarring; proposal 5 because the color scale is far too aggressive; proposal 6 for failing accessibility
  • Indifferent: Proposals 2-3
  • Abstain: Proposal 9 since I submitted it
  • Support: proposals 7 and 8 TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate: Proposal 1/4 (don't like how the TD/TS colors are switched), 3 (it fails two colors), 5/6 (too different)
  • Indifferent: Proposal 2
  • Support: Proposal 9, 7, then 8, from most-preferred to most OK. The last three pass for all people, but I think 7 and 8 don't have enough of a difference for C5, which I think should stand out the most (even more than Cat 3 to 4). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal 2, 3, 6 as it gives clear contrast of the colors, however I am concern with the difference of cat3 to cat4 for monochromatic vision in proposal 6. Thingofme (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: 2 and 3. There is a reason why purple is not encouraged to represent the most intense category. Studies have demonstrated that red is the most expected color to denote the high end of a scale. That was a concern I had with the scale that was submitted to replace the legacy scale a year ago. Proposals 2 and 3 are the best fit for an intensity scale. Supportstorm (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
White text or lightened color?

Should we use white text or a lightened color shade in templates and info boxes to make scales pass AA for normal text? Not sure how popular white text is, but it would virtually eliminate any need to worry about text accessibility. The text color would switch from black to white for colors where it is needed for accessibility reasons NoahTalk 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicalAnalystwx13, CapeVerdeWave, and Hurricanehink: Thoughts on this? Even if it isn't used for the scales here, it may become relevant for other scales in the future. NoahTalk 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the infobox to have a color? I imagine just plain text would work fine, and we can link to the SSHS or whatever is the scale in the infobox (since I imagine the blue link might clash with some colors). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People like the colors because it makes the status easily identifiable and helps to differentiate between different statuses in cases where intensities are different (ex JTWC and BOM). Removing colors entirely from infoboxes would require its own discussion and likely a separate RfC since it would be contentious. Besides, we already discussed not having ANY links on colored backgrounds for accessibility reasons so scales shouldn't be linked to within our infobox since the scale identifier is within the colored background. The issue here is if a color is too dark for it to comply with accessibility for black text. Should white text be used in place of black if a scale color is too dark? See Modified_Mercalli_intensity_scale as an example of that. Should we simply lighten the background color to make it comply? Or simply forbid any use of colors that are too dark as backgrounds for other scales? NoahTalk 00:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason changing to white font would be a problem, although just from eyeballing it seems like this issue would only be relegated to Cat 5 for the first 4 proposals and Cat 4 for the 6th proposal (which isn't accessible anyway). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There could be scales and other aspects outside TC related ones where this could apply. NoahTalk 02:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for those, I'd also suggest just using white. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(CLOSED) Final Selection (Phase 3)

RfC will be posted by February 1. It will consist of three parts. The first portion will be to decide the scale that will be implemented, the second will decide the timeline of implementation for maps, and the third will decide the timeline of implementation for timelines and templates. NoahTalk 17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Final Selection & Timelines for Implementation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to implement Proposal 9, with Proposal 2's Category 5. There is a rough consensus that Proposal 9, in everything but the C5 range, seems to be best proposal. However, many raised that the Category 5 could raise WP:ACCESS issues and more than a few editors suggested that Proposal 9 is best if modified to include Proposal 2's Category 5 colors. It is worth mentioning that the argument strength of implementing Proposal 2's C5 was in favor of Proposal 9's C5, though not too enough strength in argument favored the rest of Proposal 2, and Proposal 9 edged out the rest of Proposal 2 to be the determiner for the rest of the colors. Due to a lack of participation within about a week, I am making the call to close the RFC 18 days in as opposed to the standard 30 days, and the consensus seems strong enough to warrant an earlier closure of discussion. This comes in conjunction with many editors proposing an immediate implementation. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This RfC has three total parts. The goal here is to decide on a new color scale for maps, templates, infoboxes, and timelines, and set up some kind of idea for how we will handle implementation. Please read and respond to each section as appropriate. Thank you. NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final selection for map, template, and infobox colors

In the elimination phase, the consensus was that proposals 2, 3, AND 9 were the best three out of the nine proposed in terms of balancing satisfying WP:ACCESS and aesthetics. Which proposal of those three is the best overall and should be implemented to replace the legacy scale? NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please discuss here. See the sections above for proposal 2, proposal 3, and proposal 9. NoahTalk 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still trying to force a change when about half the editors here are against it. You need to start with a discussion on whether it should even be changed in the first place instead of trying to unilaterally push one through. You are pretty much just trying to do what you want to anyway while trying to stay under the guise of a "discussion". United States Man (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really half against a change, but more like half were against the prior proposed changes. Many people feel that there are issues with the legacy colors that need resolved but simply didn't feel the proposed changes in the prior discussions were the best way to resolve said issues. That was most of the opposition. It was only a minority that felt there were no issues period. Either we get a scale here or not at all given the massive amount of time that has been dedicated to fostering the development of proposals to replace the legacy colors. This whole page has been open to the entire project for months to work at resolving the issues. EVERYONE across EVERY weather project (from membership lists) was notified on their talkpage when phase one started, so everyone has had an opportunity to participate and let their thoughts be known. Tbh any one of the proposals here is better than what we have now in terms of providing accessibility for color blind folks. NoahTalk 23:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that ACCESS started coming up in some of the more recent featured article candidates from WPTC. It's not just an issue for colorblind people. If our maps aren't accessible, then that is likely to start impacting the ability for our articles to pass FAC and be recognized as the best on Wikipedia. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: Surely you can see that the project is in between a rock and a hard place, as while none of us particularly want to change the colours we have told to stay compliant with Wikipedia's policies on accessibility. On a personal note, I would note that I had a cataract last year which unknown to myself at the time impacted my ability to differentiate between colours that are very similar, as a result, I can sympathise with people who have problems with our maps.Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, Noah is fixing a problem, but making a few more problems. He fixes those; more problems will pop up. The problems I'm referring to are community backlash and long-time readers ignoring the map key, as well as the new colors not really showing the significance of these storms. Look, I know colorblindness is extremely severe, and a big disturbance around the world, but if we want to mitigate the problems to just one, we'll have to keep the legacy colors. Plus, even new people who see the NWS colors will be confused when they see these new colors if they ignore the map key. I'd say we should just make a change to get more people to open the key, if we want to use these new colors. One big problem cannot always overshadow more smaller problems, and neither can WP:ACCESS. This WikiProject has enough problems already, and if we add the new palette, confusion among long-time readers could make a little spike. If we make the aforementioned map key change, I'll probably change my mind. Poodle23 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poodle23: The issue is ACCESS compliance isn't optional. This is part of the Manual of Style and the WMF guidelines against discrimination. Not sure how familiar you are with these, but these policies reflect the will of the entire EN WP community and the WMF, respectively, and are superior to any decision we make on any topic. If we were to openly choose to defy the MOS and those guidelines in favor of legacy colors, there would definitely be hell to pay. Either we change the colors or we don't. If we don't, we could have the change forced upon us by people outside the project or they could just strip every FA star for articles that use and depend upon these maps and possibly every GA as well. People have brought up that they won't support something that isn't accessible at FAC. How long do you think it would take for them to start removing each and every star for that same reason? How would that look to the community? It would look like we were too petty to fix the problems and instead chose to subject ourselves to harakiri. The problems you describe are honestly quite minor and will be trivial after a bit of time. My professor told me of how people complained when the university changed from quarters to semesters about 10ish years ago or so. The changes went forward anyways and it wasn't the end of the world. People actually got used to the changes and now everything is just fine. People always complain about changes no matter what it is since there is a lot of familiarity bias. People complain, changes occur, people complain again, and then everyone moves on and the changes become normal and accepted over time. That's quite honestly how things go. NoahTalk 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Nice case, but if you don't want readers ignoring the map key like I said, you should make a change to it so more people view it. Just a suggestion; I'm not trying to make a counter-argument. Poodle23 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map key is shown by default on mobile view (beneath the map on each article) and is collapsed by default on desktop. It's there and easily accessible if people want to use it. For desktop, people only have to hit the show button. Not sure what change you had in mind. NoahTalk 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tested it on my iOS device. Nope. Poodle23 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what to tell you. I can see it on my iPhone, so I have no idea why it wouldn't show for you. We can look into it and see if there is a reason why it wouldn't show, but that would take someone experienced with template coding and time. NoahTalk 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Figures. But I'm not changing my mind, as I still support Proposal 9. Poodle23 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 9 out of personal preference since options 2/3 satisfy WP:ACCESS as well. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 includes the purple which is undesirable to many, so it should not be considered. United States Man (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who are many? Plenty of reliable agencies use purple for the top of the hurricane scale, and it's the default color for the top of the tornado scale by the NWS. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous editors here that have displayed opposition to the purple color over the past 14 months. You could find them if you care to read the many threads over this subject. Also, we are under no obligation to satisfy a color scale that someone else is using. The red color should be preserved, which makes Option 2 more desirable. United States Man (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say i support Proposal 9 as WXTC would. There is no reason to just upright change something after more than a decade of people being used to it. Take YouTube for example. When they removed the dislike button, there was major backlash. This could possibly be no different, just that this time the backlash could be coming from the WikiProject Weather community. Poodle23 (talk) 19:45 UTC, 29 January 2023
I'm not impressed with the pastel colors of proposal 9. Personally it's harder to tell the colors apart than proposals 2 or 3. It also contains purple as the highest category which like I previously mentioned should be discouraged for an intensity scale. So Proposal 2 is still my top pick. Supportstorm (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal 9, in order of most to least preference it's 9, then 2, then 3. The main difference between 2 and 3 is that 2 has a brighter TS color, which I prefer. Then between 2 and 9, the same question becomes, which is more vibrant, and thus more likely to stand out. I have to go with #9. I like having purple as Cat 5. IDK, maybe it's because purple used to be considered more of a royal color. From Wikipedia's own article on purple - Purple has long been associated with royalty, originally because Tyrian purple dye, made from the mucus secretion of a species of snail, was extremely expensive in antiquity. For the strongest tropical cyclones on Earth, I think purple is a better option than a dark red, which is difficult to see on the Blue Marble map. I'll note that when I started tracking tropical cyclones online, I turned to the (now-defunct) website Weather.unisys.com/hurricanes, which had a standard map for the entire world, and the storms were plotted according to intensity and location, making it easy to see the track of a storm whether it's in 1851 or 2001. Unisys used white for Cat 5 storms on the black background, which really stood out to me. Unisys was, as far as I knew and remembered, the only place online that you could see track maps for every storm around the world, not just the Atlantic Ocean, so it was kind of a big deal, and it was often used on weather communities......... until Wikipedia track maps were implemented in 2006. A huge thanks to User:Jdorje, Titoxd, Cyclonebiskit, Iune, Supportstorm, Meow, and other users who have implemented and created these track maps, which are now publicly available, for free, around the world, for practically every storm on record. Without them, we wouldn't have two years worth of discussion to decide the best way to move forward, after the last 17 years made Wikipedia track maps practically the global standard, outside of the occasional RSMC, met office, and corporate entity. And fun fact as I ramble my way to finishing this comment. Fake track maps (that is, the track map of a hypothetical hurricane) were often charted onto Unisys maps back when I first joined the online weather community in the early 2000's, but now those same fake storms are charted onto the Blue Marble. I understand some hesitation among some people at the first changes in a long time (perhaps those same users were upset by the recent Wikipedia-wide redesign). That is no reason not to change though, as it is necessary to update the colors to make our maps more accessible. If you're still reading for whatever reason, go take a walk, get some water and fresh air, and take pride in the fact that you are providing people around the world with free, reliable content :P (^_^) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most to least preference: Proposal 9, then 2, and finally 3. 9 by far has the most visible scheme. A blend of 9 and 2 would almost be best, but is not an option. Otherwise, like United States Man, I see no reason to alter the current scheme. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal 9 – Pastel colors work better over the other options in the majority of instances on the maps, particularly the purple for highest category. The only snag is implementation across other languages as brought up by a German editor last year. This can be remedied by someone who knows how to work through the varies sites and can access the template pages to copy/paste the updated colors. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has honestly got to be the most useless place I've ever been. Everything that most people do here is counterproductive and counterintuitive to anything that has logical sense. If you all wanna screw it up, go right ahead. United States Man (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have long stuck with the same logic that whatever you disagree on are disagreed by most or makes no sense. Perhaps you might wanna reread this thread and reconsider why almost no one agrees with you at all - is it due to everyone in this project being stupid, or is it due to your own unwillingness to compromise and your narcissistic/self-centred personality when facing opposition? If the former applies, why are you so determined to force your own opinion to be agreed on by a bunch of "stupid" people? Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you? lol United States Man (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am banned from editing pages in project space, however I would still like my opinion to be considered. Should the banning policy exclude my comment from being considered in the discussion, I'm fine with not !voting. Anyway, I support Proposal 2 as being the solution to this discussion, as well as for the scale not being Proposal 9, for multiple reasons. First, my personal opinion. Over the past year, I have made it clear that I think that purple disrupts the color progression from blue to red, that it looks bad, etc. I have not changed my mind about this, and if my opinion is discounted as "the usual opposition to change", then so be it. Second, WP:ACCESS. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but so far absolutely nobody has pointed out that C4 and C5 are basically identical on Proposal 9's monochromatic scale. Insufficient monochromatic contrast was one of the reasons that people opposed the original change in the first place, and between the purple for C5 and the monochromatic problem between C4 and C5, Proposal 9 is undesirable. Proposal 2, on the other hand, has a perfectly nice dark red C5 and excellent contrast in all areas of color blindness. If possible under policies, please copy this to the RfC page, under Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC#Discussion 2. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied per Chicdat's request on the talk page. NoahTalk 12:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Chicdat makes a valid point on the subsequent C4 and C5 monochromatic colors being identical in Proposal 9. Supportstorm (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment: After looking at proposal 2 and proposal 9 for days, I honestly think that the best scale would be Proposal 9, but with Proposal 2's Category 5 color. This would mean no ACCESS concerns (proposal 9's only ACCESS problem is the monochromatic lack of contrast between C4 and C5), which would mean that we'd actually be able to pass it without violating a guideline. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the talk page. NoahTalk 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's come up a few times, so I'm just offering a refutation to people who are concerned about purple as the Category 5 color and may be swayed by the argument. It is true that there's been plenty of research showing red is associated with danger, that's well known. There is not, however, research showing that purple is perceived less seriously (such as green for instance). In fact, pink or purple are the highest colors for multiple NOAA products. For example, the SPC outlooks use red for Moderate risk but pink for High risk; SPC maps use purple, not red, for EF5; and winter weather graphics for ice use purple as higher accumulation/threat than red, among other examples. If the principal weather agency in this country often uses purple to indicate the top of the scale, I'm not sure there's a convincing argument for us not to. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tallied up everyone that supports Proposal 9 and Proposal 2. The result is a 5-5. It's like we're on a seesaw, just waiting for someone to un-equal the balance and send the other team flying. Poodle23 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not 5-5... It's 3 for Proposal 2 and 5 for Proposal 9. However, I would like to point out that consensus is not a vote, but is determined by overall strength of argument. NoahTalk 02:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a study by Ernst et al. 2021 who looked into the perception of risk within SPC graphics. In the results section they found that 19% of the 3006 participants could place magenta in the right category. This figure shows the results. This is a weakness on the NWS color portrayal of risk/intensity in their graphics. As social science becomes more seriously factored in the NWS there may be a point they change the color scheme recommended by these kinds of studies. We can at least follow it now. Supportstorm (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't exactly mean they're going to change it right away. I think they'll change it maybe in the next 3-7 years, but for now, they're not going to do it. Thus, we use Proposal 9. Poodle23 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NOAA has been working with social scientists for decades; discussions about colors aren't new or unique to our project. Maybe in the future they will revamp the colors they use, or maybe the current colors they use are consciously based on social science that differs with the study you posted (ironically, Sean is one of my best friends). Either way, I should point out it is not our job to design things based off social science, although consistency is always nice. In this case, for now, using purple would not be an inconsistency. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 01:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have meeting frequently with scientist about the perception of products. From what I can tell the addition of legends and the intended audience of some of these products being higher level than general public are used to justify the color scheme internally. We do not have legends on our maps however. We have them on file/article pages. To keep the maps accessible in every language we don't include them on the graphic. So I still feel like we benefit from sticking close to a red maximum intensity that's intuitive for when the map is shared outside of Wikipedia. This is a less significant point of contention than the lack of contrast in certain categories of this proposed scale though. We should focus more energy on addressing that I will admit. Supportstorm (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking long and hard about this over the past week. Being honest here, the only two viable options at this point are options 2 and 9 since 3 has no supports. I have been thinking about the positives and negatives of each of the two proposals in depth and I will summarize that here. Proposal 2 does an excellent job at providing contrast at the Normal, Protanopic, Deuteranopic, and Tritanopic levels. While there is great contrast between individual levels on the monochromatic scale, looking at the map, some confusion could take place between colors such as TD and C3 as well as TS and C2. I would also have to note that the red color is indeed harsher on the eyes than the purple proposed in Proposal 9. Moving on, Proposal 9 also does an excellent job at providing contrast at the Normal, Protanopic, Deuteranopic, and Tritanopic levels. As far as monochromatics go, the overall contrast is lower than in Proposal 2 since less of the monochromatic scale is used and it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between C4 and C5. I do have to say that many agencies do indeed use purple as a top color for warnings. We have the PAGASA’s Signal 5 being colored purple, there’s MFR’s purple alert, EF5 being purple in NWS as well. We also have many agencies using red as a top color as well. I honestly don’t believe that to factor into what’s perceived as being more severe. People get used to what’s used and then perceptions change. That being said, no scale is going to be perfect and we can’t make them 100% accessible. We just simply need to do the best that we can. Whichever proposal is used will be a serious improvement over the legacy colors which are currently in place. With all that said, it isn’t really a matter of accessibility at the Normal, Protanopic, Deuteranopic, and Tritanopic levels as both scales do an excellent job. This falls down to monochromatic and aesthetics. I believe that both scales are generally equal on the monochromatic level, however, Proposal 2 has two colors that are particularly hard to discern while Proposal 9 only has one. Having fewer colors that are similar came at the cost of contrast between colors, however, they can generally be discerned. Additionally, the dark red is harder on the eyes than the purple, which is only an aesthetic concern, however, I feel that should be taken into account. By a razor thin margin, I believe that proposal 9 is the better of those two proposals. We need to reach a consensus on which proposal to use as the replacement scale and I believe Proposal 9 will be the one to get us there. NoahTalk 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So when's this RfC gonna close? Poodle23 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least 30 days as a baseline (February 27), but as long or short as it takes after that to establish consensus. Remember, consensus isn't based on !votes but rather the strength of the argument. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poodle23: Too early to request closure. If there isn't much or any activity over the next week, then it might be ready to submit. I would say no earlier than February 18th would be appropriate to put in a request for closure. That being said, the discussion remains open until a closure occurs which could be hours to weeks. NoahTalk 21:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really requesting closure, but thanks. Poodle23 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (summoned by bot)Slightly prefer 9 to 2, hate 3. I initially disliked the colors of 9 when pinged a week and a half ago, but I waited to see if it would grow on me, and it did. Option 9 has the advantage that for protanopia and deuteranopia, the Cat5 color stands out clearly, rather than being a muddy grey-brown. Option 9 would be a very nice improvement over the current colors. DFlhb (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation: 2023 seasons

Should the scale decided in the prior section be implemented immediately (following the closure of this RfC) for the maps in 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, 2023 Pacific hurricane season, 2023 Pacific typhoon season, and the 2023 North Indian Ocean cyclone season? NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please discuss here. Options are yes or no. NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.Jason Rees (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Poodle23 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck per comment below stating that Poodle23 changed their mind. NoahTalk 21:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sooner the better. We could honestly probably do a press release, considering the significance of what we're doing here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: What exactly do you mean by that? A project newsletter, signpost, and/or something else? NoahTalk 21:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the newsletter, signpost, and perhaps even something else to have ready ahead of the hurricane season, maybe some article that we can share on weather forums (such as Storm2k and Facebook) about the need for the change and the process for coming up with a solution. I'm not sure how much bigger we should think, but given how much our track maps are already used, I feel like people should know. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might have time to put something together in March when I am on Spring Break. NoahTalk 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is decided by then, yea, March will be a good time to put stuff out, while the NHEM is still relatively quiet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I change my mind for both of these (infobox and this). So that's a yes. Poodle23 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it should be implemented immediately for the upcoming seasons. NoahTalk 18:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation: templates, infoboxes, and timelines

Should the scale decided in section 1 be implemented immediately (following the closure of this RfC) in all templates, infoboxes, and timelines or only after all maps have been changed over to the new scale? NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please discuss here. Options are immediately or after. NoahTalk 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After more discussion. United States Man (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as possible.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After. Poodle23 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck per comment in the discussion subsection above this one stating that Poodle23 changed their mind. NoahTalk 21:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove color from Infobox as third option? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should implement this immediately in templates. NoahTalk 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as possible, no real reason to only implement when the track maps have been updated. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modification

Closing this discussion myself since the consensus is quite clear. Given this is a mere continuation of the discussion above which has spanned 26 days in total and this specific portion of the discussion has been open for over 7 days now and had its own notice posted at all project pages on February 16, I feel it is time for it to be closed. The consensus above was that Proposal 9 was favored over Proposal 2, except in Category 5 as a result of the expressed WP:ACCESS issues at the monochromatic level. The consensus here, given that the ACCESS issues mentioned above were resolved, is that the proposed Category 5 color is favored over the one decided above because it is accessible against black text and is aesthetically superior. NoahTalk 00:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

As I stated in proposal 1 (this applies to proposal 2 since it's the same color), the red color wouldn't be accessible with text and a lighter shade would be required for usage on WP templates/infoboxes, which is shown below(the minimum acceptable for text). Given the outcome of the discussion above, would we want to simply use this lighter red color for everything (also maps) so the difference isn't so jarring? The only thing I am changing is the shade of the C5 red. NoahTalk 13:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we can tweak proposal 9's Cat 5 color so that there's no confusion even at the monochrome level. For the sake of consensus, it makes sense why the discussion above was settled the way it was. However, aesthetically, it does not good whatsoever to substitute one color from proposal 2 into proposal 9. If we can successfully tweak that, we can hopefully keep the aesthetic while avoiding the issue of accessible text. I'll get back to you. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Instead of trying to guestimate and trial/error, I utilized our new AI overlords to come up with a different shade of purple that a) is accessible against the marble blue background, b) is accessible against black text, and c) addresses the original issue of being too similar to Cat 4 at the monochrome level. This would solve every level of accessibility, prevent us from needing to change to white text, and is more aesthstically pleasing (I think) than substituting proposal 2's color in. Please see the plot and the third table attached below. I'm not sure how we proceed on this, since I assume it will need consensus? wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wxtrackercody: Yes, it would need consensus. Should I just open a discussion regarding it or do you think a full RfC is required? Would you be able to create tracks for these (current consensus and the proposed) so others could get an idea of how the colors would look? NoahTalk 00:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Current consensus
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Proposed colors
Category Normal Protanopic Deuteranopic Tritanopic Monochromatic
Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression
Tropical Depression/Tropical Low/Deep Depression
Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0
Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2
Category 1/RSI1/EF1
Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2
Category 3/RSI3/EF3
Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4
Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5
Discussion

Should the proposed, modified proposal 9 Category 5 color be implemented to replace the current Category 5 color given that MOS:ACCESS concerns that were expressed during the RfC are resolved? NoahTalk 01:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I believe that the purple color is easier on the eyes against the map background than the dark red color and provides more contrast against the red than another shade of red does. This would also alleviate the text accessibility issues that I expressed would occur with the dark red color. We never got a consensus on white text so that isn't an option at this point. Given that PTC isn't on the map, there wouldn't be any big issues with accessibility across the whole scale. NoahTalk 01:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I maintain that the purple is easier to see and better aesthetically over the burgundy. Now that the monochrome ACCESS concerns are alleviated I see no reason to use proposal 9 in its entirety. As Noah mentioned, this also bypasses the need to add white text and keeps things simple. An additional RfC is unnecessary as the one above should be reopened as a premature close. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have added an example of the RfC consensus map with proposal 9's colors for TD-Cat 4 and proposal 2 for Cat 5. I do not believe this color jives well aesthetically with the others. Additionally, since ChatGPT helped me come up with an accessible color by every metric, this one is superior to proposal 2's category 5 color now, since that fails accessibility on black text. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am not supporting any scale with purple as the C5 color, having already said that it disrupts the color progression from "okay" to danger. Plus, we are literally proposing a scale that is almost exactly the same as what was passed and widely protested last February, and look what happened last time. Finally, the STS and C2 monochromatic colors appear identical to me, so there appears to be another ACCESS challenge that others missed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from talk page. NoahTalk 13:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • This scale is actually quite different from the scale proposed back in February. The purple isn't as intense and there are larger differences between the other levels. That scale didn't have monochromatic accessibility while this one does. STS isn't a color that is used on the maps so there isn't really an accessibility issue there. I get you really don't like purple, but people could play the same game with proposal 2. We are already using the rest of proposal 9 as it is and it doesn't make sense to just plop a value from proposal 2 into proposal 9 and call that our scale. To be frank Chicdat, this is damned if we do damned if we don't. People will complain regardless of what we do. NoahTalk 13:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This will fulfill 2 things: One, WP:ACCESS, and two, similarity with the NWS and SPC's colors (e.g. EF5 is purple, high risk is pink). Poodle23 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation (Phase 4)

Reactions/Feedback

@Hurricane Noah: I felt like the original color scheme was fine and I’m used to thay scheme. The new one throws my brain off because it increases from the cool end of the spectrum to the warm end and then just suddenly back to the cool end. It doesn’t fit with portraying severity. I’d go back to the original color scheme because that worked fine for years. We can’t please everyone according to WP:ACCESS and if we start trying to we’ll be nitpicking every little detail. I myself have diabetic retinopathy and colors can appear very different depending on how my eyes are that day. However, ive never had an issue distinguishing color’s because at some point, i just learned which colors were associated with which category. If someone has an issue they will learn to deal with it themselves just as I and most of us have for years.NickWX28 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NickWX28: You are right that we can't please everyone, however, we do have to make our maps accessible to most people which is what the new color scheme accomplishes. We are unable to fix every accessibility problem out there, however, we must ensure that the most glaring issues are resolved. Considering the fact that numerous people with color blindness and even people with normal vision have complained about the old color scheme, it just had to go. It would be really difficult for people to learn what colors are associated with a category when they can't tell the difference between them. Even if they did know what each color means, the fact that they can't tell the difference between colors on the map due to the dot size is alarming. That's why these changing are going into effect. In essence, this should should fix most of the problems for most of the people. NoahTalk 13:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But its not going to. The issue isn’t with the color of the dots on the map, its with the fact that those dots are small and one cannot tell which color is which. On the headers of each cyclone yeah its easy to tell. Not so much with the dots. If you wanted an actual solution to the problem, don’t change the current color scheme because again, people are used to it and it makes sense intensity wise to have it go from cool colors to warm colors. Red should be reserved for the highest intensity. Then orange. Darker yellow. Lighter yellow. Light green. Light blue. And light violet. Could also incorporate white, pink. Just use the six main colors in increasing intensity, with darker and lighter shades based on how they’d look on the map. Red should always be for the most intense cyclones since it is the warmest color. Purple should not, as that is a complete 180 going from the warmest to the coolest on the spectrum. But again, you shouldn’t just change the color scheme to please a few people because then you’re setting a terrible precedent where people displeased which every color scheme are gonna complain to have it changed. The original worked best, some slight modifications to the original would be better than completely reworking the color scheme.NickWX28 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dots on maps need to be easily discernible from each other when viewed in an article, which is what these changes accomplish. Many people feel that the new scale makes massive improvements in that area. Numerous scales actually use purple for the most intense color. Meteo France uses a purple alert as its highest TC alert for Reunion. PAGASA's Signal 5 is portrayed as a pinkish-purple. EF5 is purple on NWS products. Purple isn't seen as being lower than red. It is actually depicted as being worse than red in many cases. If we didn't change it, we would be setting an even worse precedent that discrimination against people with disabilities is okay. We are required to follow wikipedia's rules on accessibility and many editors deemed that the old scale violates accessibility. A significant overhaul was needed to fix all the problems we were facing. That's how we ended up with the scale we have now. We aren't changing it back solely to please people who would prefer the old scale. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument for repeal. NoahTalk 15:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me I didn't like the change, the traditional colors should be there permanently, not the ones from now because it's as if DC changed old actors to new actors from now. I didn't like it IMHO МОДОКАУ 02:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between casting parts for movies and colors in maps. Our project had to change the colors to follow the rules of wikipedia regarding accessibility. If we didn't, then it would have spelled the end for our quality content. Every article using the maps would have been delisted for violating the Manual of Style. It would also have made any future nominations for any article using said maps impossible. Given people have raised concerns at the admin noticeboards about us not following the MOS, we need to follow through on future changes that support the MOS or else there could be trouble. This wasn't just an issue amongst us here, but rather many outside the project were aware of and acknowledged that the original colors were not accessible. This is what's referred to as being between a rock and a hard place. We didn't have any choice but to make these changes. NoahTalk 02:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new colors are honestly even worse than the ones that were first used. Quite frankly I'm enraged with how this has all been handled, but I'll try to be as respectful as I can. The new colors look absolutely terrible, they're way too pastel and cartoonish, and don't actually solve the problems that started this whole change in the first place. The new colors are still hard to differentiate for colorblind people (particularly for Tritanopic and Monochromatic people with certain colors). It was also mentioned in previous discussions about this change that people with regular vision couldn't differentiate the old colors, however the exact same problem applies to the new colors as well, since some of the new colors are too similar to differentiate upon first glance, which is the same problem people had with the old colors. The fact that they went back to using purple for C5 storms is also a huge problem, since that's exactly the reason why so many people were opposed to this change. The colors go from an intimidating color often associated with danger to a skittles color. In fact, practically all of the new colors look more kiddish than the old ones. There were eight other color schemes that could've been chosen, some of which were actually pretty good, but they were all rejected in favor of something from a little girl's coloring book. Do we really want the color scale to look like something from a toddlers' show. It's worsened by the fact that red is now used for C4 storms and orange is now used for C3 storms (I know the colors are now slightly different, but they're still shades of red and orange), which will just cause confusion that isn't just going to go away like the people in charge of the change seem to believe (which is ironic given that the old colors were considered "not accessible", yet the new colors are actually less accessible). It's been brought up that purple is used for C5 storms by the NWS. Newsflash: We don't have to be exactly like the NWS. The people in charge of this change said that whole thing was about accessibility, however being visually appealing is a part of that. If people don't like the new colors, they may be turned off from the website and end up avoiding Wikipedia in the future. This is something the people in charge of the change failed to take into account. However, the people in charge of this change just dismissed every aesthetic complaint as being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To be honest the whole IDONTLIKEIT policy is just being used as a way of silencing people who bring up legitimate aesthetic complaints, but I'll go into that some other time. Visual complaints can't just be dismissed as IDONTLIKEIT because being aesthetically pleasing is important for accessability. I hope a new discussion is started and is handled more professionally. I'm sure this change had good intentions but the way it has been handled is appalling, especially for a website that's supposed to be professionally-run. Marelsnyhe (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to be aesthetically pleasing to everyone, which is why WP:IDONTLIKEIT (for it looking bad aesthetically) is not a good argument. Also, I compared the old colors to the new colors, and it turns out, the new colors are more accessible, not the old ones. The arguments about the colors looking child-like is also part of them not looking aesthetically pleasing, which I already said isn't a good argument. I'm trying to be respectful, but the arguments you presented just aren't the best. There are also valid reasons to dislike the new color scheme. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criticisms of the old color scheme was that it was hard to for people with normal vision to differentiate the colors. The new color scheme fails to solve that problem, since a lot of the colors below C5 are hard to differentiate. As I said above, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just being used to silence people who criticize the new color scheme. While it is true that there is no way to be aesthetically pleasing to everyone, if the majority of people don't like the new color scheme, then things should be done.
The new color scheme has turned the weather templates into an absolute joke, and if a new discussion isn't started to fix things, then it will probably mean the end of Wikipedia's weather community as people will start to move to other sites instead. Marelsnyhe (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People are free to join and leave the community as they wish. Leaving based on new colors would seem pretty silly in the grand scheme of things, but I won't judge. The overarching point here is that you are acting like we didn't just have a multi-year debate on this topic. It was heavily debated. Among editors who contributed to it, we reached consensus. If 'the majority of people' were against it, they should have voiced those concerns during the discussion that was heavily promoted for months. The main criticism of the old scale was not that it was hard to differentiate for normal people, it was that it was not accessible to people who are colorblind. That is the reason why we changed them. It is not as if we decided to wake up one day and decide to cause uproar over colors we likewise were attached to. This new scheme is more accessible in every way. We will all get used to them with time. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to be as respectful as I can, but you're making it more and more difficult to do so. Did any of the people debating this consult people who are actually colorblind? I think that's pretty important for something like this. You can't just do something like this on behalf of colorblind people without consulting colorblind people. Shouldn't they have a say in this? If you wanted to use a different color for C5, why didn't you just use Black? Black is often scene as more intimidating than Red. I know that the text in the infobox is also black so it would be impossible to see the text, but I'm sure there's a way to make the text white on the black background. I also get that Black would be harder to see on the track maps, but I'm sure that could be worked out. I'd actually be more willing to accept the change if Black was used for C5 storms instead of Purple. Unfortunately, a certain user (who I won't name here) made every other option look as bad as possible because they desperately wanted Purple to be used for C5 storms. Also about the whole "we just have to get used to the change"; you can apply that logic to literally any scenario. In fact, let's apply that logic to some other scenarios shall we?
"Someone just got violently murdered, but it's okay because their family will just get used to the change."
"A house just got destroyed, but it's okay because the owners will just get used to the change."
"A nuclear power plant just had a meltdown and radiation leaked into the environment, but it's okay because everyone will just get used to the change."
See how easy it is? You can use that logic to paint any of these scenarios in this flowery way if you want to, but that doesn't make it good that it happened. In fact by that logic, why try to stop global warming; everyone will just get used to the changes brought by global warming eventually. People aren't going to get used to changes they don't like, so this argument is invalid. A new discussion needs to be started to fix this mess, but I doubt that will happen. The outrage needs to be more widespread for that to happen. Marelsnyhe (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comparing someone getting murdered to some colors becoming more accessible? (they are more accessible, stop say they aren't) That is... questionable. Also yes, people with visibility issues did participate in the disscussion (here and here). You say that purple for a cat. 5 color is childish. However, black for cat. 5 color looks amateur and unprofessional (I tried it myself). We are not gonna do a whole new discussion undoing months worth of progress just because of one user who mind you, didn't participate in any part of the discussion. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did we consult people who are actually colorblind? In addition to the links RandomInifinity provided, a notification was posted to the Accessibility wikiproject, so yes we sought outside opinion. We also utilized Web AIM's Contrast Checker for accessibility. I'm a little confused why you wrote an entire paragraph advocating for black and then explained why that would not at all be desirable or accessible. We used purple for Cat 5 because that matches the color progression, and because weather agencies all around the world utilize purple for their highest categories of danger. There is no need for a new discussion, because we just had a multi-year one that reached consensus on the principal issue we were trying to fix. A discussion, I will also point out alongside RandomInfinity, you did not participate in. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current colour of purple looks like grey on track maps, as it is too dark that it blends with the background. I have seen people complaining that #8d75е6 is so difficult to distinguish on track maps. 🐱💬 13:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There simply is no way to feasibly edit all the tracking maps, so at this point I think changing the colors was not worth the hassle. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bot can and will be made to convert all the old maps. It won't take us long to reupload the stragglers with coding. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I’m missing something, not having read the entire RfC, but the color scheme with the red Cat5 seems superior for track maps then the one with the purple Cat5. The red seems to be easier to differentiate for those with Monochromatic vision than the purple, while still accessible for those with other types of colorblindness. And unlike the purple, it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb to those with non—monochromatic color vision. The rest of the color scheme seems easier to differentiate to those with colorblindness too, but without a reference to what the ocean color looks like to those with color blindness, I can’t say for sure. The purple Cat5 is really my only issue with the current consensus color scheme though (looking at it as someone with normal color vision), and if the color was closer to the others and stood out from the other colors less (while still being able to be separated from the others, of course, that’s the whole point of the RfC) I don’t think I’d mind the change in the slightest. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The red Cat5 was too dark and wouldnt have made sense to combine with the proposal 9 colors that were favored. Considering that the proposal 9 colors were favored overall barring the issue the initial C5 color had for monochromatic access, it didnt make sense to use proposal 9 colors for everything except Cat 5. Mixing and mashing two proposals together doesnt make sense from an aesthetic standpoint. The red color used on WP would have had to have been significantly lighter due to issues with black text which is another reason we decided to simply use a purple that had better monochromatic contrast. Even then, we still had to make slight adjustments on WP for the C5 and PTC colors. Any dark color on the track maps tends to either blend into the sea or be an eyesore while lighter colors are preferable. The dark red was simply too dark a color for these maps, having the minimum allowable contrast over the sea, and clashed with the rest of the scale which is much lighter. We felt that different colors would be better than different shades of the same colors. Both scales are accessible, however, there were other considerations taken into account when deciding which to use. NoahTalk 03:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, though I’m still not a fan of this specific shade of purple, looking at Hurricane Katrina#National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for example, it stands out, kinda makes it seem like it’s a different type of warning than the others, like a tornado warning or something. I still think that with some twiddling of color values the purple could look inline with the other colors, to make it clear that it’s just a stronger hurricane and not a special category. But I don’t think this is such a problem that the whole color scheme should be ditched if it can’t be resolved, it’s certainly better than the other proposed color schemes. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that most of the scale is acceptable except for the Cat 5 color. It's an eyesore of a color and too dark against the blue background of the basemap. I have shown this color map to several people and this was the only complaint they had. Others remarked it makes it seem like a new category was added either through familiarity of the previous colorscale or expecting red color being the strongest category. I also cannot recall the contrast being checked against the blue ocean background of the map during the above discussion. So, while it does well for comparing against the contrast of the other color and for the white background of wiki, the new C5 color does poorly for the actual track. Proposal 2 also had this issue with its C5 color. Supportstorm (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explorerer5 (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I believe you have made a mistake, And i request the old colors be restored.[reply]
Did you not see the multi-month discussion about making the colors more accessible? It was not a mistake. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we may need to change the timeline background color slightly, as the STS colour is relatively hard to distinguish from the background here. SolarisPenguin (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track maps needing manual conversion

Tables TBA here for all track maps that need to be redone manually. NoahTalk 04:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may id like to nominate all tropical cyclones in the South Pacific to be mannualy redone with data from IBTRACS rather than just the JTWC. This is because the JTWC does not always track the systems for as long as PNG/BoM/FMS/MSNZ and thus misses systems that impact New Zealand, for example Bola 1970.Jason Rees (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: The ones that were done manually in the past are not located within the category for the bot to redo them. There are three categories actually that need redone manually. The ones the bot will redo are solely based on track data from either HURDAT or the JTWC. NoahTalk 13:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its great that if they were redone manually earlier and are not in the category to be redone, however, I maintain my postion that all tropical cyclones in the SPAC need to be redone manually using IBTRACS data as the JTWC data doesn't capture the system properly. Hell before 1980 they didnt even monitor systems in the SHEM. I would note that to the best of my knowledge, IBTRACS data is in the public domain.Jason Rees (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will the colors be permanently implamented or will they be changed in the future? RaydenAG (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table I

New maps should be placed within Commons:Category:Tropical cyclone track maps with the 2023 scale and have "(2023 scale)" within the file name after "track". NoahTalk 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File Status
File:01-E 1988 track.png
File:01A 1973 track.png
File:01A 1974 track.png
File:01B 1971 track.png
File:01B 1972 track.png
File:01B 1975 track.png
File:01B 1976 track.png
File:01B 1977 track.png
File:01B 1978 track.png
File:01B 1979 track.png
File:01C 1978 track.png
File:01S 1983 track.png
File:01S 1985 track.png
File:01W 2022 track.png
File:02-E 1992 track.png
File:02A 1973 track.png
File:02A 1974 track.png
File:02A 1975 track.png
File:02A 1976 track.png
File:02A 1977 track.png
File:02A 1979 track.png
File:02B 1978 track.png
File:02F 2018 track.png
File:02F 2019 track.png
File:02Q 2021 track.png
File:03A 1977 track.png
File:03B 1971 track.png
File:03B 1974 track.png
File:03B 1975 track.png
File:03B 1978 track.png
File:03F 2018 track.png
File:03U 2018 track.png
File:04-E 1988 track.png
File:04B 1977 track.png
File:04B 1978 track.png
File:04B 1979 track.png
File:04F 2021 track.png
File:04L 2022 track.png
File:04R 2018 track.png
File:05B 1972 track.png
File:05B 1975 track.png
File:05B 1977 track.png
File:05B 1979 track.png
File:05F 2018-19 track.png
File:05F 2020 track.png
File:05U 2018 track.png
File:06B 1973 track.png
File:06B 1974 track.png
File:06B 1976 track.png
File:06B 1977 track.png
File:06B 1979 track.png
File:06F 2019 track.png
File:07-W 1939 track.png
File:07A 1974 track.png
File:07A 1979 track.png
File:07B 1976 track.png
File:07F 2020 track.png
File:07P 1984 track.png
File:07S 1987 track.png
File:08A 1976 track.png
File:08B 1974 track.png
File:08B 1979 track.png
File:08F 2000 track.png
File:08F 2019 track.png
File:08F 2020 track.png
File:08S 1986 track.png
File:08U Dec 2018 track.png
File:08W 2021 track.png
File:09-E 1988 track.png
File:09B 1972 track.png
File:09B 1976 track.png
File:09U 2017 track.png
File:09U 2020 track.png
File:10-W 2000 track.png
File:10B 1971 track.png
File:10B 1972 track.png
File:10B 1973 track.png
File:10B 1976 track.png
File:10F 2019 track.png
File:10F 2021 track.png
File:10L 2017 track.png
File:10S 1966 track.png
File:10U 2018 track.png
File:11F 2021 track.png
File:11U 2018 track.png
File:11U 2019 track.png
File:11U 2020 track.png
File:12-E 1992 track.png
File:12A 1972 track.png
File:12B 1971 track.png
File:12B 1973 track.png
File:12B 1974 track.png
File:12B 1976 track.png
File:12F 2019 track.png
File:12L 2022 track.png
File:12W 2021 track.png
File:13-E 1988 track.png
File:13A 1971 track.png
File:13B 1973 track.png
File:13B 1976 track.png
File:13F 2021 track.png
File:13R 2000 track.png
File:13S 1966 track.png
File:13U 2019 track.png
File:13U 2021 track.png
File:14-W 2000 track.png
File:14B 1971 track.png
File:14B 1972 track.png
File:14B 1973 track.png
File:14B 1976 track.png
File:14F 2015 track.png
File:15-E 1988 track.png
File:15A 1971 track.png
File:15U 2017 track.png
File:15U 2019 track.png
File:16A 1975 track.png
File:16B 1972 track.png
File:16P 1999 track.png
File:16S 1989 track.png
File:16U 2023 track.png
File:17-S 2000 track.png
File:17E 2019 track.png
File:17S 1966 track.png
File:17W 2021 track.png
File:18-E 1988 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 1 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 2 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 3 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 4 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 5 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 6 track.png
File:1866 Atlantic hurricane 7 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 10 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 11 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 12 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 13 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 14 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 15 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 6 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 7 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 8 track.png
File:1892 Pacific typhoon 9 track.png
File:18B 1975 track.png
File:18S 1999 track.png
File:1934 Atlantic tropical storm 11 track.png
File:1935 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.jpg
File:1936 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
File:1936 Atlantic tropical storm 17 track.png
File:1937 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
File:1937 Atlantic tropical storm 5 track.png
File:1938 Atlantic hurricane 1 track.png
File:1938 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
File:1939 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
File:1940 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
File:1956 Atlantic tropical storm 9 track.png
File:1958 Atlantic tropical storm 1 track.png
File:1958 Atlantic tropical storm 12 track.png
File:1959 Atlantic tropical storm 6 track.png
File:1959 Atlantic tropical storm 8 track.png
File:1959 Atlantic tropical storm 9 track.png
File:1960 Atlantic tropical storm 6 track.png
File:1974 Pacific hurricane season summary map.png
File:1996 Lake Huron cyclone track.png
File:19B 1975 track.png
File:20-E 1988 track.png
File:2021 Groundhog Day nor'easter track.png
File:2021 Spring nor'easter track.png
File:2021 Super Bowl Sunday nor'easter track.png
File:20B 1975 track.png
File:22U 2019 track.png
File:23S 1982 track.png
File:23U 2019 track.png
File:24U 2021 track.png
File:26S 1999 track.png
File:26W 2021 track.png
File:29U 2022 track.png
File:29W 2009 track.png
File:29W 2021 track.png
File:33U 2022 track.png
File:35S 1998 track.png
File:4-W 2000 track.png
File:6-E 2010 track.jpg
File:6-S 2000 track.png
File:60W 2006 track.png
File:8-W 2000 track.png
File:91C 2006 track.png
File:96C 2018 track.png
File:Adele 1968 track.png
File:Agatha 1972 track.png
File:Alice 1965 track.png
File:Amanda 1863 track.png
File:Amber 1968 track.png
File:Andry 1983 track.png
File:Angela 1966 track.png
File:Anita 2010 track.png
File:Anna 1960 track.png
File:Anne 1965 track.png
File:Annie 1967 track.png

Table II

Table III

Talk page comments

Comments from Chicdat

@Hurricane Noah: I am banned from editing pages in project space, however I would still like my opinion to be considered. Should the banning policy exclude my comment from being considered in the discussion, I'm fine with not !voting. Anyway, I support Proposal 2 as being the solution to this discussion, as well as for the scale not being Proposal 9, for multiple reasons. First, my personal opinion. Over the past year, I have made it clear that I think that purple disrupts the color progression from blue to red, that it looks bad, etc. I have not changed my mind about this, and if my opinion is discounted as "the usual opposition to change", then so be it. Second, WP:ACCESS. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but so far absolutely nobody has pointed out that C4 and C5 are basically identical on Proposal 9's monochromatic scale. Insufficient monochromatic contrast was one of the reasons that people opposed the original change in the first place, and between the purple for C5 and the monochromatic problem between C4 and C5, Proposal 9 is undesirable. Proposal 2, on the other hand, has a perfectly nice dark red C5 and excellent contrast in all areas of color blindness. If possible under policies, please copy this to the RfC page, under Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC#Discussion 2. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: @Hurricane Noah: After looking at proposal 2 and proposal 9 for days, I honestly think that the best scale would be Proposal 9, but with Proposal 2's Category 5 color. This would mean no ACCESS concerns (proposal 9's only ACCESS problem is the monochromatic lack of contrast between C4 and C5), which would mean that we'd actually be able to pass it without violating a guideline. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: (at #Modification) Oppose - I am not supporting any scale with purple as the C5 color, having already said that it disrupts the color progression from "okay" to danger. Plus, we are literally proposing a scale that is almost exactly the same as what was passed and widely protested last February, and look what happened last time. Finally, the STS and C2 monochromatic colors appear identical to me, so there appears to be another ACCESS challenge that others missed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MarioProtIV

@Hurricane Noah: Rewuesting a similar vein for my response. I’m also currently topic-banned from editing weather pages after last years fiasco regarding similar issues. However, after having read through my restrictions I think this new RfC may not fall under it, considering it’s more of an ACCESS discussion, which as far as I’m aware I am not restricted on. Like Chicdat, if policy also excludes me from leaving a response I’m fine with not voting. My opinion: I’ve read through the discussion here (it’s on my watchlist) to keep updated on how things are playing out, and when considering everyone’s opinion and input here, I think Proposal 2 is the better alternative. Why? It’s not too much of a change from the old scale, since it allows a nice flow of change up to 5. On the other hand, Proposal 9 seems to regurgitate issues users had with the old new scale. The switch from red to pink from 4 to 5 is quite the eyesore, and as Chicdat said, the monochromatic issues also persist with Proposal 9 from the 4-to-5 change. If my response is allowed to be included, please include it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC#Discussion 2. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: Your topic ban would preclude you from participating in the discussion. Chicdat's was only a ban from editing project pages (Wikipedia:) and had an exception for participation within discussions. I would advise you against editing this page again as it is a violation of the topic ban. NoahTalk 23:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Colour_discussions&oldid=1263177672#2023_Color_RfCs"