Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season edit

Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the criteria to be considered as such. Overall, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most busy on record, with nineteen named storms. Despite the high number of systems, none of hurricane intensity or major hurricane intensity struck the United States. I hope you like this timeline as it took a lot of work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --12george1 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Hello TropicalAnalystwx13, I got a few queries before I support:
  • "400 UTC (12:00 a.m. EDT) – The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins." - I believe the Atlantic hurricane seasons start at 0000 UTC on June 1, not 12:00 a.m. EDT June 1.
  • "80 mi (130 km)[nb 3] north-northeast of Puerto Lempira." - You should probably mention the name of the country (Honduras), since most people have probably never heard let alone know where Puerto Lempira is.
  • "Tropical Storm Alex makes its first landfall near" - WikiLink "landfall"
  • "Hurricane Alex attains its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 946 mb (hPa; 27.94 inHg), and simultaneously makes its second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." - Avoid using "its" more than once in a sentence. I would suggest revising the latter part of the sentence to: "and simultaneously made a second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." By the way, WikiLink "maximum sustained winds" and "barometric pressure", and add the parameter
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "on record" only just thought about this, when did your "records" begin? Worth noting (e.g. "one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons since records began in xxxx").
  • "Although Hurricane Alex formed on June 15, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30," I don't understand at all. Are you suggesting that the season's official start date was such in spite of Alex forming 14 days later?
    • No. It's just meant as a comparison for when the first storm formed against the start of the season. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I'd say it the other way around, like "the season officially began on June 1 with the first hurricane, Hurricane Alex, forming on June 15..." or similar. RIght now the sentence is completely confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need to keep repeating "Hurricane" in front of the storm names, it's pretty clear that you're not suddenly talking about some bloke called Igor and removing the repetition would improve the prose.
  • Is there a definition or a link for "gale diameter"?
  • Timeline image needs to comply with WP:DASH for the speed ranges.
  • "Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, becoming the first hurricane of the 2010 season.[6]" three times hurricane in one sentence!
  • Is there a link for inHg? Non-experts may not get this at all.
  • "a non-convective remnant area of low pressure" what is one of those?
  • "Tropical Storm Gaston on September 4" but Gaston had become a "non-convective remnant" by September 2...
  • "Tropical cyclones of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season" Template fails WP:ACCESS using colour only to display the hurricane strength.
    • Not sure what to do about this. Will bring up a discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • After talking about this with other members of the project, we've decided no change is needed. For one, the letter of the storm (or number in the case of a tropical depression) is still given, and two, if you mouse-over the little square it gives you the rating without the need of seeing the color. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as a screen reader can determine the difference, then no problem. Is that the case here? (Also, could you link me to the discussion please?) Also, I'm not sure you're getting the point, you have a yellow box with an A in it, and a key next to it with a yellow box with an unlinked "A2". So how does that help a screen reader or someone who can't determine the difference between the various shades of yellow used in the template? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It shouldn't matter. The template is used primarily to differentiate the storms within the season, not their intensities. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • But it is also used to depict their intensity. The template is inaccessible per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't quite say it's inaccessible. It's quite accessible for anyone, clearly differentiating by letter or number for the storms. The fact it also differentiates by color is additional, but secondary. IMHO, at least. Also, given the template is used throughout the project and not just this article, and we've never had a problem in hundreds of FA's, I don't think the discussion here is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm afraid FAC tends to ignore the slightly more esoteric sections of the MOS like ACCESS. FLCs don't, so the discussion here is entirely appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Many timelines have also passed without any such discussion of a button bar. I think it's unfair to single out this nomination when this discussion affects hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times and standards change I'm afraid. Just because it wasn't spotted last time, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point that I don't think here is the best place for this discussion, given that this could affect hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but the comment still applies to this FLC. You said your project had decided it was fine, it isn't fine for FLCs I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Hurricanehink said, it affects the whole project, so this issue is pretty much inactionable for the time being. Were there any other comments that needed to be addressed? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's clearly actionable at any time, should people have the effort to do so. If that's not the case, that's a different matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've capped the concerns that were addressed. I need to leave this one open because nothing seems to be being done about it. A shame because FLC prides itself on a strong compliance with ACCESS, particularly when two people support despite the clear failure to meet one of the fundamental criteria for FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to respond on the WPTC talk page about the matter, which is where the main discussion is taking place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your invitation... What is WPTC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (WPTC)...the talk page discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that, cool. Yeah, I remember stumbling over that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment here on my talk page regarding the template. Colors without matching symbols are violations of WP:ACCESS, and I don't see how the template in use here can be considered anything other than a violation. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I don't believe that the list should be promoted with a known issue such as this. To me it is perfectly actionable, and something that has been mentioned at FLC many times before. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. According to WP:ACCESS, it is a violation that if a article or list using color the same information can be made via another method. The policy only lists an accessible symbol as an example, another option for instance is footnote labels. In this case, the information can be displayed just be scrolling up. Furthermore, the policy says regarding to color that "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." YE Pacific Hurricane 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is: The template is there for navigation. It should not be considered as part of the informational flow of the document. If we have no colors, then sighted people don't know the intensities, and blind people don't know the intensities. Note that the intensities is simply to make navigation simpler; this is not the only, nor is it remotely the primary, place that this information is contained. If we have colors, then sighted people can see the intensities, and blind people still don't know the intensities. As far as they are concerned, nothing is being lost. No data is being obscured; they have the same ability they had before there were colors to click through to the articles in question and find out the intensities. That a navigational template helps one class of people more than another is not a sign that the other is being harmed. Now, if that information were being portrayed in the list itself, or in the article, in a fashion that blind users could not access, THAT would be a major problem. But that's not the case here. This is a navigational aid that is more helpful to some users than others. (I mean, it also technically discriminates against people who don't know what the letters mean) The only legitimate complaint I could see is if the colors made it impossible for the colorblind to differentiate and read the letters. To quote Yellow Evan's citation of policy, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." The information in a navigational template can never be considered important, as it is a drastically reduced subset if the information available in the articles they link to. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyone bother to reply to this? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would be easier to just fix it, and enjoy the benefit being rolled out across all the articles where this is used. It's not up to us to decide what's "important" or not to those readers who depend on WP:ACCESS to make the most of the website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what is easiest. It is about what is right. It's easy to make an article without any sources, but is it the right thing to do? No. While you disagree with me on this, I don't think there is a need for such a change. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – content is satisfactory, sources done well, solid images. I don't think the button bar can be held against this particular article, so long as the TC project continues to try and solve that problem. I've discussed a couple issues with the nominator and he's addressed them sufficiently. Juliancolton (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, I believe this does a great job conveying the season, so I'm happy to support it becoming a featured list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The accessibility concerns raised by Rambling Man and Giants2008 have yet to be addressed, and it doesn't look like they will be any time soon. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't affect this nomination, since those templates are used on hundreds of articles, not specifically this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the accessibility concern is bogus IMO per the above arguments. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I honestly think the access issue is BS; I don't see any problems with this timeline. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's obvious this debate is going nowhere. You two (speaking to TheRamblingMan and Giants2008) believe the template fails WP:ACCESS; others believe there's nothing wrong with it. As a compromise, how about I just remove it from the timeline, and accompanying timelines, altogether? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it never occurred to me that the template should not be here. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suits me. Pity you can't just fix the template now you're aware of the issues. Hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't "fix" it and keep it in its current tight format; you'd have to change it to a detailed list of storms. That might be preferable, but it's not an accessibility fix, it's a rewrite of the template. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure you can "fix it". But there's been ten times as much effort about challenging the opposes rather than looking for a solution. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless you have a specific suggestion, then all I can come up with is a nasty little system of adding little symbols or numbers in each letter, and of course adding a detailed legend, and at that point it's ceased to be a neat little diagram and we might as well just replace it. Do you have a specific suggestion other than that? Because that cure is worse than the disease. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I don't because I'm busy doing a lot of other things. The comment was made on 27 January so it's not like the nominator or the various associated projects haven't had time to seek out a reasonable solution. I'm not here to provide those solutions, just to highlight that there are problems versus our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yet you're so sure a solution can be made that doesn't involve redoing the template's concept. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I didn't say that, did I? I just said there's been six weeks pass, meanwhile all the project/contributors have done is whinge about it, not look for answers. Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, the project has agreed that there isn't a need to change it. It's clearly accessible, since the primary use of the template is to differentiate the storms by the letter. We could just get rid of the colours if you want, it really doesn't matter. Anyone who is colourblind can tell that A is different from 2, which is different from B, and so on. I still am amazed how the template is not accessible. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The project is wrong. If colours can't be distinguished then the template is inaccessible. The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they? Anyway, the template has been removed, this conversation is pointless in this context unless the project can see the light. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<--There's no inherent need to link storm "B" to "TS" though. There is only one storm B, and the template links to it fine, regardless of colour. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this is what it looks like. We shouldn't have to rely on click-throughs. This isn't Google. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And A looks different from B, I don't get the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about? You have to link B to TS to know that B is a TS. The only way you can do that is through the colour of the background. That's not commensurate with WP:ACCESS. Is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But whether it is a TS or a C2 doesn't matter much. The storms are named alphabetically. If you're in 2005 at Hurricane Wilma, you only need the K to know how to get to Katrina. The colour is just extra. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That said, you know 2005's K was Katrina, I know 2005's K was Katrina, but if someone didn't, how would they know from the template alone without mousing over the link? --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they didn't know K was Katrina, then I don't think the category would help either. Sandy was well-known in 2012, but not because of its intensity. Ditto Allison in 2001. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then perhaps the template is deficient for reasons other than accessibility. This accessibility thing has been a red herring to the real problem that the template is inside baseball. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed, which is why I have long disagreed with the objections over this FLC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You misunderstand; the template may still be worthy of objection but not for accessibility issues. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, we were talking about the use of that particular template on this particular list. My comment stands: " The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they?". It may be that the use of this template on other articles is covered by the article, but it wasn't here. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But the template is to link between storms, and they can very much do that without worrying about colours. As I said, the intensity and colouring is secondary. If they're looking for Bonnie, they click on the B. People don't usually know the differences in category. Alex is the A storm, regardless the colour and intensity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please see above, this isn't Google, we don't do "click-throughs" and each article should standalone. If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm, it should do so in a way that a colour-blind or otherwise access-challenged editor can appreciate. Without relying on a click. Obviously. Otherwise, why not just lose the colour of the boxes? Right now it's just prejudicing against those who can't determine between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I'm sorry to keep rambling on about this, but from your quote above "If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm". that information can be displayed by scrolling up which I think is an adequate example to "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen". However, The Rambling Man, I agree that Hink's argument of clicking through would not constitute WP:ACCESS. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Don't be sorry, discussion is good. The point is that our users shouldn't have to scroll up to locate the information. A template like this which is widely used should be self-contained and useable to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't see why scrolling up is an issue. In a properly done timeline, the information is already there once if not twice. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                              • As I said, the template should be self-contained and not rely on other parts of articles it may be used in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. For what its worth, I find the WPTC's argument of "It's been done this way in hundreds of articles!" completely unconvincing. That doesn't matter. This isn't WPTC:FLC, this is WP:FLC. We have standards here. That you have your own standards doesn't mean FLC has to conform to them; it just means you won't get listed on FL if you don't follow them. So please stop giving that sob story; if the standards change (and hoo boy do they, always for the better) then you should match them, because usually the folks at FLC know what they're talking about. If one article is criticized for something in FLC that it wouldn't have been criticized for in 2008, that is a sign that it is time for YOUR standards to improve, not that FLC's standards have become too strict. It used to be that all articles had linked dates; we don't anymore. Things improve. That said, I don't find the argument that a purely navigational footer template needs to be purely accessible compelling. It is not important information. The only detriment I could think of is if it speaks poorly to screen readers, i.e. it doesn't properly communicate the links. I don't know if it does or not. If it does, then obviously it needs to be fixed, but so far as I can see no one has complained about that, they have simply complained about the use of color without a glyph key. Now, and WPTC should consider this, it might be better to replace it with a more detailed template - names, strengths, etc. - rather than the current, somewhat gimmicky color blocks. But as it currently is, I don't find it fails the accessibility guidelines, and thus cannot use it as a reason to oppose. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much anguish about a template. See my proposal at WT:WPTC#WP:Accessibility for an alternative template that hopefully satisfies the accessibility concerns. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_the_2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1136456813"