This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
California wildfires template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have fixed the contrast issues per WP:COLOUR. 173.197.107.20 ( talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as the current incarnation of the template fails
WP:COLOR itself, I would strongly vote changing it back to use the sandybrown color scheme that is used by multiple other templates: {{
Washington wildfires}}
, {{
Infobox wildfire}}
, {{
California wildfires by size}}
. There are plenty of examples all over wikipedia of nav boxes that are different colors, just check out
University of Notre Dame. There are at least 4 different color schemed navboxes there. I see no reason at all not to revert this back to its original color scheme. (@
SounderBruce,
Wikimandia, and
NeilN: any thoughts?)
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
And these are the colours I'd proposed, which satisfy WP:COLOUR, for comparison:
Alakzi ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If we want to keep the original colour scheme, then how about this:
Alakzi ( talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that WP:COLOR states "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The AA level requires a 4.5:1 ratio while AAA requires 7:1. The original color scheme is AA compliant. I really think this is just a bit hoopla about something that really isn't a big deal. We should all, myself included, remember Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Again I say revert this back to its original state. The title of the navbox is AA compliant and the rest of the navbox is AAA compliant (which is more than can be said about most navboxes on here). At the very least, the template should be restored back to the way it was before an anonymous user came in and reverted. IF a consensus is reached that the colors should be changed, I will certainly standby that consensus as that time. I believe this is the proper process after all: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. A change was made, it was reverted, now lets discuss it... Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing)
Sorry I have a hard time taking anyone with this extensive of a block log and who explicitly forbids admins from posting on their talk page that seriously. Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument anywhere in this thread, let alone the billionth. Interestingly enough for that to be the billionth... If you stated that once a second, every second of every day it would take you 31.69 years, or roughly 1.1 Saturn years (gotta love Wolfram Alpha). Since wikipedia has only been around for about 14.5 years, I think we are exaggerating just a little bit... ;-) @ BU Rob13: my bad. I was referring to the current state of the template that Alakzi kept reverting it back to. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing)
Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument ...I said it at 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC), and I've said it elsewhere. You appear to have got the hang of Snook's tool, so you could've gone into the tiniest effort to check. Alakzi ( talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If the bickering could stop for a bit: Is anyone going to muck around with colors in the next day if I lift protection so content can be added? -- NeilN talk to me 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would think something like that would work. @ Zackmann08: you are the fire guy, your opinion is still appreciated here :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN: can we get the page unprotected now? I'd really like to get back to adding more fires to the infobox. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So on a new topic, what do people think about merging Template:California wildfires by size into this template? Creating a third collapsible section? That template just lists the 20 largest fires in California history. Seems like it could be merged in. I'm neutral and could go either way on but curious what others think. (And please, lets not discuss the color differences....). -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Short protection to stop edit warring and avoid blocking. Please adhere to WP:3RR and file a report or notify an admin before you break WP:3RR yourself. -- NeilN talk to me 16:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This sentence on the project page is awkward:
“ | For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template | ” |
Checkingfax ( talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
“ | For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), {{California wildfires|selected=list}} should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template.
|
” |
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.
So some history on this template. Originally there were Multiple different templates, one for each year. For example {{ 2014 California wildfires}}:
As the pages grew, it was suggested by many editors, including (I believe) Alakzi and SounderBruce that these be merged into one template. (I don't feel like tracking down the link to that discussion at the moment...) After a discussion a CONSENSUS was reached to merge them. Thus the current incarnation of {{ California wildfires}} was born. It serves TWO purposes.
The current question is Should the top section, lists by year, be removed? I believe there are 3 options....
Please discuss below. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the article Bel Air Fire and noticed that among the California wildfires at the end of the article, the Cedar Fire (2003) was missing. The Cedar Fire was hugely destructive - lots more homes than the Bel Air fire - and its Wikipedia article is quite good. So, it certainly should appear. I don't think I've ever edited a template, and I'd rather not learn how just now. So, would someone else please make this fix? Oaklandguy ( talk) 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In group 25, please change:
[[York Fire (2023)|York]] to
[[York Fire|York]], thanks.
2A00:23EE:15F8:3F31:902F:59FF:FE15:F39B (
talk)
18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
California wildfires template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have fixed the contrast issues per WP:COLOUR. 173.197.107.20 ( talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as the current incarnation of the template fails
WP:COLOR itself, I would strongly vote changing it back to use the sandybrown color scheme that is used by multiple other templates: {{
Washington wildfires}}
, {{
Infobox wildfire}}
, {{
California wildfires by size}}
. There are plenty of examples all over wikipedia of nav boxes that are different colors, just check out
University of Notre Dame. There are at least 4 different color schemed navboxes there. I see no reason at all not to revert this back to its original color scheme. (@
SounderBruce,
Wikimandia, and
NeilN: any thoughts?)
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
And these are the colours I'd proposed, which satisfy WP:COLOUR, for comparison:
Alakzi ( talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If we want to keep the original colour scheme, then how about this:
Alakzi ( talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that WP:COLOR states "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The AA level requires a 4.5:1 ratio while AAA requires 7:1. The original color scheme is AA compliant. I really think this is just a bit hoopla about something that really isn't a big deal. We should all, myself included, remember Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Again I say revert this back to its original state. The title of the navbox is AA compliant and the rest of the navbox is AAA compliant (which is more than can be said about most navboxes on here). At the very least, the template should be restored back to the way it was before an anonymous user came in and reverted. IF a consensus is reached that the colors should be changed, I will certainly standby that consensus as that time. I believe this is the proper process after all: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. A change was made, it was reverted, now lets discuss it... Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing)
Sorry I have a hard time taking anyone with this extensive of a block log and who explicitly forbids admins from posting on their talk page that seriously. Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument anywhere in this thread, let alone the billionth. Interestingly enough for that to be the billionth... If you stated that once a second, every second of every day it would take you 31.69 years, or roughly 1.1 Saturn years (gotta love Wolfram Alpha). Since wikipedia has only been around for about 14.5 years, I think we are exaggerating just a little bit... ;-) @ BU Rob13: my bad. I was referring to the current state of the template that Alakzi kept reverting it back to. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing)
Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument ...I said it at 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC), and I've said it elsewhere. You appear to have got the hang of Snook's tool, so you could've gone into the tiniest effort to check. Alakzi ( talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If the bickering could stop for a bit: Is anyone going to muck around with colors in the next day if I lift protection so content can be added? -- NeilN talk to me 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would think something like that would work. @ Zackmann08: you are the fire guy, your opinion is still appreciated here :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN: can we get the page unprotected now? I'd really like to get back to adding more fires to the infobox. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So on a new topic, what do people think about merging Template:California wildfires by size into this template? Creating a third collapsible section? That template just lists the 20 largest fires in California history. Seems like it could be merged in. I'm neutral and could go either way on but curious what others think. (And please, lets not discuss the color differences....). -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Short protection to stop edit warring and avoid blocking. Please adhere to WP:3RR and file a report or notify an admin before you break WP:3RR yourself. -- NeilN talk to me 16:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This sentence on the project page is awkward:
“ | For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template | ” |
Checkingfax ( talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
“ | For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), {{California wildfires|selected=list}} should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template.
|
” |
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.
So some history on this template. Originally there were Multiple different templates, one for each year. For example {{ 2014 California wildfires}}:
As the pages grew, it was suggested by many editors, including (I believe) Alakzi and SounderBruce that these be merged into one template. (I don't feel like tracking down the link to that discussion at the moment...) After a discussion a CONSENSUS was reached to merge them. Thus the current incarnation of {{ California wildfires}} was born. It serves TWO purposes.
The current question is Should the top section, lists by year, be removed? I believe there are 3 options....
Please discuss below. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the article Bel Air Fire and noticed that among the California wildfires at the end of the article, the Cedar Fire (2003) was missing. The Cedar Fire was hugely destructive - lots more homes than the Bel Air fire - and its Wikipedia article is quite good. So, it certainly should appear. I don't think I've ever edited a template, and I'd rather not learn how just now. So, would someone else please make this fix? Oaklandguy ( talk) 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In group 25, please change:
[[York Fire (2023)|York]] to
[[York Fire|York]], thanks.
2A00:23EE:15F8:3F31:902F:59FF:FE15:F39B (
talk)
18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)