This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This orphaned talk page, subpage, or image page is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been deemed useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Which color scheme is more accessible?

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

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

Proposed color changes

Color comparison table

Track map comparison

Discussion

AC's Idea

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

LGS's color scheme

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

Comment – Cat 5 pops out on a dark background better if it's lighter. My issue with the original proposal (which has been fixed now) is that the cat 5 color simultaneously stuck out like a sore thumb because of the hue difference but also felt muted compared to cat 4 because it was too dark. Remember that these colors will be displayed on a dark background, so lighter colors will provide more contrast. I think Cat 5 should probably be the "brightest" and center of attention/focus for any map it shows up on. – atomic𓅊 7732 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Base map

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

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

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

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

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

Bumping this subsection, I think we are not addressing the elephant in the room.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

(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)

Redux: New RfC (February 2022)

Infobox & Template colors

Timeline for implementation

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per SolarisPenguin said this new color is confusion in the reader, I would like to kept the old color in the template. HurricaneEdgar 04:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Specifically to you, this is an all-or-nothing change. People don't want to change one without changing the other so either we change everything to a new scheme or we change nothing at all. Consistency between maps and templates is a requirement for almost everyone here. We really tried to make the best possible scale given the obstacles we had to tackle. If we had a better alternative, it likely would have been proposed by this point and adopted. Noah ^Talk 10:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I also oppose reverting the changes per reasons given by Noah, Jasper Deng, L&D2000, and TropicalAnalystwx2013. The original grounds for changing the color scheme was to make it more accessible for users, and to help people with colorblindness and other vision issues differentiate the different colors with higher contrast. Many editors, (myself included) have mentioned how the original colors were difficult to see and tell apart among other things, and how the shades are too close to one another to tell apart for those with colorblindness and other troubles with sight. Per the words of @ LightandDark2000: from a previous discussion, "For those people who are opposed to changing the current coloring system just because you favor the old system or think that no changes are needed, let me remind you of a couple of things: 1) Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the changes shouldn't go forward, and 2) Accessibility matters." And also "humans can and do adapt to changes. This is another change that we'll simply have to adapt to. The new coloring system is similar to the old one, so it shouldn't be too jarring for those used to the older system, but at the same time, it makes the colors much easier to differentiate and also more accessible to our colorblind readers, which needs to happen. Also, WP:ACCESS is a site-wide 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. 🌀 Cyclone Football 71🏈 | sandbox 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

New proposal

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

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

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

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

While this is similar to the color scale I proposed, [5] was my actual proposal. SolarisPenguin ( talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried out the proposals here (including one off-wiki) and the colors are still too close to each other. (solar's proposal: [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. Akber mamps 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate proposal for maps

I made this comment earlier, but I think it got overlooked. The issue was raised, in off-wiki discussion, that the track maps are used on other language Wikipedias in addition to the English 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)

• Support having the bots create separate images for the new tracks rather than overriding existing ones. Noah ^Talk 11:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd move to snow close this as we don't have a choice here but to upload new images per c:COM:OVERWRITE. The consensus of the Wikimedia Commons community very clearly overrides the consensus of a WikiProject on just one language of 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)

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. Noah ^Talk 22:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Colors

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

Old timelines

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

Current timeline (Normal Vision)

Provisions

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

• Support 1; Neutral 5; Support 6; Support 7 provisions as proposer. Hopefully, this makes a solution that everyone can agree on so we can get back to making images and articles. Noah ^Talk 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @ MarioProtIV, JavaHurricane, KingLucarius, LightandDark2000, DaneH20, SolarisPenguin, HurricaneEdgar, Akbermamps, Chlod, Drdpw, Jason Rees, United States Man, TropicalAnalystwx13, Jasper Deng, CycloneFootball71, Supportstorm, Mobius Gerig, and TornadoLGS: Pinging everyone who participated thus far in the above discussion for thoughts so we can avoid a repeat of last time. Noah ^Talk 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @ ChessEric, Destroyeraa, PurpleLights, Nova Crystallis, CooperScience, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging some additional project people who may have an opinion on this subject. I would also like to be transparent and state that I collected some feedback on the scale off-wiki before proposing it here so colors could be finetuned and any issues I missed be corrected. Noah ^Talk 23:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

  I oppose provision 3 for the reason that it suggests the creation of a new extension, which is unrealistic. If the usage of EasyTimeline (i.e. the <timeline> tag) itself is what's causing problems, then a better solution would be to use an existing replacement rather than formulate a new one. I will note, having developed a MediaWiki extension before, that extension development is a feat, especially one that requires the use of graphics libraries. The suggestion that we'll be able to develop a replacement extension, have it approved by the entire English 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support provision 1 – per TornadoLGS.

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

Support provision 7 to keep the original background color.

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

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

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

Support provision 6, see above

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

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

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

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

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

• Support 1, 5, neutral 6, 7. As such I have no idea about what the discussion regarding the timeline is about, but I have to say that the new colours are much better than the ones approved above; the new colours cause no eye pain, for my part. Java Hurricane 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1, Neutral/Weak Support 5-6, Support 7 - These colors are much more friendlier then the previous scheme and are more closely related to the old colors. They satisfy much of the issues and don’t deviate far enough to confuse me as well. In regards to the maps, I support new maps, if they can’t be globalized then create separate files and have a bot replace them in the pages, if they can be via consensus on Meta, upload a new version of the current files Timeline looks great as well, so I support bringing the previous background back for that as well. -- MarioProtIV ( ^talk/ _contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Provisions 1, 5 and 7. Oppose Provision 6 - I agree, that this proposal is significantly better, than the previous ones. The contrast of the colours, slowly change throughout the scale. Unlike, the original proposal, with Category 4 being coded red and Category 5 being coded purple, respectively. The contrast between those two colours were alot darker than the rest of the scale, in that proposal. TropicalCyclone101 ( talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support 1&7, Neutral, leaning support on 5&6- I like the new color scheme presented here, though I prefer the previous color change with purple cat 5 colors, but I will fully support it if it helps all people who have eyesight troubles. for provision #7, if there were no issues with the previous contrast color, I don't see why we can't change it back to the original color. as for 5&6, I feel more discussion is needed here to see which option is best, however I do think that it only seems fair to have a discussion on meta to get everyone involved and notified of any major changes made for the maps. 🌀 Cyclone Football 71🏈 | sandbox 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Cat 4 and Cat 5 are much too close in this new one so I cannot support the new proposal.— Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @ Jasper Deng: Did a tweaking of the colors. Is this better? Noah ^Talk 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  An issue may be that people simply do not know where to go to complain. I have seen numerous instances of complaints on twitter from non-WP weather people who view our site. See [11] and [12] as examples of external complaints. I'm sure people would be coming here if they knew where to go. Noah ^Talk 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Nova Crystallis: I could get behind that, if there is the possibility of accessibility issues on the map as well, they definitely need to be addressed along with the colors. Just to clarify, you're proposing to basically restart the discussion from the beginning and find/agree on a better map, and then find colors for the intensity scale and continue to work on from there? 🌀 Cyclone Football 71🏈 | sandbox 04:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Okay, thank you. 🌀 Cyclone Football 71🏈 | sandbox 05:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)

  @ 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)

  @ 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)

Hybrid proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support the hybrid proposal (in conjunction with provisions 5 and 6 from Noah in the above discussion). It fixes the issues I had with colors being too similar and makes the category transition feel more natural. A new color is necessary to create an adequate range of colors and purple is the best fit for it. I believe making the purple darker would cause issues blue marble background, as evidenced by the maps provided by Jasper. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose Oppose – This scale looks okay for the most part, but I'd like to see a darker red color for C4, similar to what we have for the current C4 color (the former C5 color).A darker shade would make it easier to see on the maps. And perhaps a slightly darker shade of orange for C3 as well. Additionally, the lighter colors does make it a bit harder to differentiate the C4 and C3 colors at a smaller resolution. Also, what color are we going to use for the new severe tropical storm color? Menthol green? I don't see this category addressed in this proposal. Also, I feel like we are going to run into the same opposition to those who opposed the coloring system currently in use. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to "oppose" now, in light of the issues identified by Akbermamps. Any viable coloring system has to work for both normal vision and colorblind readers, in templates, the track maps, and the Timeline chart. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The color scheme is a bit too light and I think it's hard to distinguish C1 and C2 colors on the map. Also, I'm not sure that introducing more color schemes is the most productive thing to do at this point. TornadoLGS ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @ TornadoLGS: As you are probably aware, XKCD is satirical in nature and in this case, the analogy does not follow. If anything, having colors be brighter is necessary for contrast against the dark blue map. This is more akin to the RfC process of IETF than what’s in that strip.— Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @ Jasper Deng: I am aware it is satirical, but I do think that it applies. The more proposed color schemes there are, the more camps there will be in this discussion, and the harder it will be to reach a consensus. An issue, I've found, with too many light colors, is that even if they are easy to distinguish in a chart, they are harder to distinguish from each other if they are all against a dark background, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a color scale. It seems to me that both the current color scheme and the second one under discussion, proposed by Noah, have sufficient contrast from the background. TornadoLGS ( talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• I strongly support this as having the best of both worlds and also being based on sound color science instead of hand-waving like “it looks ugly”.— Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While pleasant and contrast-compliant, looking on color blindness simulators, the colors are either too close to each other or unintuitive. On the red-blind and green-blind simulations, the C1 and TS colors are basically undistinguishable, and on the blue-blind simulation, the C5 color is too close to the C3 color. It's confusing to see the scale getting redder and redder, then when it gets to C5, it suddenly gets lighter. I also want to note that changing the TS/TD color to be farther away from C1 will make the TD color too close to the C5 color for blue-blind people. With some fixes, this could work, but for now I'm opposing. Akber mamps 06:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In light of these issues, I have no choice but to oppose this proposal. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I examined the issues you mentioned using that site and for none of the colorblindness types do C1 and TS or C3 and C5 look similar. Master of Time ( talk) 06:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To clarify in case there is confusion, I'm inputting the track map provided above into the colorblindness simulator. They are distinguishable on a scale, but when on a map it's very hard to distinguish the difference. Akber mamps 07:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Provided we slightly modify the PTC color to contrast with the C5 shade (and for everything except PTC), I will support. I like this significantly more than the original proposal that was voted on on the basis that it seems more natural with fewer weird jumps in the colors and makes the scale less oversaturated while still looking good on the colorblindness metrics. Master of Time ( talk) 06:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Tentatively support the use of varying hues to allow for clear distinctions in colors, a fairly uniform brightness, and the use of a bright color for cat 5. This is in contrast to the dark color "rose red" in the March 21st proposal which makes cat 4 the most prominent color on the dark blue track map background. I do think the one thing that perhaps hurts it is that it feels a bit too pastel/light, which could affect the color distinction somewhat. Would also like to see the colorblindness scale comparison, though given the similarity to the recently adopted color scale, it is likely quite sufficient in that respect. – atomic𓅊 7732 07:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Atomic7732: [13] here is a color comparison chart. You can use [14] to check the map proposed here if you would like. Noah ^Talk 11:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colour for Storm Force

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

Potential off-wiki canvassing

@ TheresNoTime, Compassionate727, and Worm That Turned: Due to 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

@ 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)

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

(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)

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. Noah ^Talk 14:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Noah ^Talk 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

@ 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)]

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

@ 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. Noah ^Talk 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have re-proposed it. 🇺🇦  Chicdat   ^{Bawk to me!} 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Newest Proposal Yet, once more

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)

We do need the colors, and I would vehemently oppose getting rid of them. United States Man ( talk) 11:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Iune talk 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ Jason Rees: And that's why purple for C5 is problematic. 🇺🇦  Chicdat   ^{Bawk to me!} 09:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Noah ^Talk 13:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• See Supportstorm's map of Amphan below:
  

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 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.

• I was told by a steward that meta is not the place to discuss global image changes. This should be done on commons. Noah ^Talk 14:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

Discussion

Please leave comments pertaining to the ongoing RfC here. Noah ^Talk 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Noah ^Talk 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which above? Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ 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) Noah ^Talk 14:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support per my (and other people's) previous comments. Akber mamps 16:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• 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 ( d c̄) 04:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  @ 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. Noah ^Talk 23:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose United States Man ( talk) 23:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per Cyclonebiskit, but like Jasper Deng I prefer the purple color for category 5 regardless of any changes to the background map. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 03:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @ Cyclonebiskit, United States Man, Ks0stm, Jasper Deng, and Nova Crystallis: Just a note that you are supporting what would make it nearly impossible for people with monochromatic colorblindness to see the intensity of storms. The status quo does not conform with ACCESS, and unless you can propose a different color scheme that does, your !votes are violating a guideline. 🇺🇦  Chicdat   ^{Bawk to me!} 10:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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. Noah ^Talk 11:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Akber mamps 12:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Yes! Revert to original, 2021 version, and start afresh with a new RfC. 🇺🇦  Chicdat   ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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. Noah ^Talk 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss here. Noah ^Talk 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose changing map – per reasoning given by Hurricane Noah in above section. United States Man ( talk) 23:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ United States Man: Just to clarify, you oppose both the proposed scheme and any potential change to the background? Noah ^Talk 23:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. United States Man ( talk) 23:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support changing to a map like c:File:World location map.svg.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ Nova Crystallis: That map is honestly a no go because it doesn't have every piece of land on it. If you look at it, only major land masses are on it. Islands within the Lesser Antilles, the Azores, outlying Hawaiian Islands, Pacific islands such as Guam, etc., simply aren't shown period. How about something similar to c:File:BlankMap-World3.svg instead (this is missing Hawaii apparently)? Noah ^Talk 03:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  c:File:HD 15000 x 6500 Equirectangular Blank Political Map with Oceans Marked in Blue.png covers all said issues.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  c:File:World location map (equirectangular 180).svg This is a bit more faithful to the first one suggested with more details.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Would you be okay with c:File:World Map WPWX.svg? I recolored an existing map to fit more with what we are looking for. If not, I think c:File:HD 15000 x 6500 Equirectangular Blank Political Map with Oceans Marked in Blue.png is the best bet, albeit with the lighter ocean color that my image has. Noah ^Talk 04:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support Nova Crystallis' position c:File:World location map.svg. @ Hurricane Noah: We have tried to look at alternative backgrounds twice in these map discussions and it didn't attract much attention. This is not a valid argument to oppose this particular map. The map does not need to have the high contrast the current map does and I agree fullheartedly with CB. Also, the NHC uses a similarly-colored map on their website so this also better aligns with the principle that we should align our content presentation with that of reliable sources.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't oppose it here. Something I think could help would be having an outline on the edge of dots rather than simple color splats. That would eliminate the need to avoid certain colors no matter the background map. What would you think about this, @ Jasper Deng:? Noah ^Talk 01:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think regardless of whichever basemap is chosen, adding outlines to the symbols/lines will be necessary for a vector map and beneficial for raster. Supportstorm ( talk) 02:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support dark maps, oppose light maps. Lighter maps require the track lines to be black, something that the current track maker (as far as I'm aware) cannot do. Additionally, the colors become way too close to the C1 and TS colors (both in for colorblind people and not) and would require a shifting of the color scheme towards darker (and likely harder to distinguish) colors.

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). Akber mamps 05:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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:

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? Noah ^Talk 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@ 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. Noah ^Talk 03:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

• (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. Akber mamps 04:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@ 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. Noah ^Talk 05:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Hurricane Noah: Does this work? Sadly the C1 color is off for some reason even though I put in the right color (bug maybe?) Akber mamps 05:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@ 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. Noah ^Talk 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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. Noah ^Talk 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

@ 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.

Noah ^Talk 02:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)