Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/New Weather Infobox

79.1% Infobox weather event adoption (2200 / 2783) as of 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

   

Phase 1: Introduction & Development I

What's this about?

Many of our infoboxes have existed for quite a while without undergoing any serious changes. This has led to infoboxes becoming outdated coding-wise since some features are now obsolete while there are also new ones. Infoboxes such as Tropical Cyclone, Floods, and Storm are a mess of coding which makes it difficult to modify them without causing errors and thus limits any additional functionality we desire. This is in large part a result of having so many different scales that are used within our infoboxes. We have several infoboxes for various events while it is possible to use the same infobox and have everything centralized by using a modular style. Storm colors and images have already been modulized for quite some time. The benefit of using modular infoboxes is that you can only include the parts that you need within an article. This means we can more easily edit our infoboxes to add new features as we desire. The other issue we have is that some topics lack proper infoboxes, such as space weather, droughts, cold waves, and heat waves. I propose that we start with these topics in order to get a baseline established for what we want to include in the general infobox and we can develop specifics for the sub-infoboxes for each of these events. Noah^Talk 14:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Droughts

Scales

Palmer Index

Proposed colors

Category	Color
Extreme Drought
Severe Drought
Moderate Drought
Mid-range
Moderately Moist
Very Moist
Extremely Moist

U.S. Drought Monitor Scale

Proposed colors

Category	Color
D0 Abnormally Dry	Cat 1 Color
D1 Drought - Moderate	Cat 2 Color
D2 Drought - Severe	Cat 3 Color
D3 Drought - Extreme	Cat 4 Color
D4 Drought - Exceptional	Cat 5 Color

Heat waves and cold waves

Scales

Actual Temperature

Proposed colors

Category	Color
< -70 C
≥ -70 C
≥ -65 C
≥ -60 C
≥ -55 C
≥ -50 C
≥ -45 C
≥ -40 C
≥ -35 C
≥ -30 C
≥ -25 C
≥ -20 C
≥ -15 C
≥ -10 C
≥ -5 C
≥ 0 C
≥ 5 C
≥ 10 C
≥ 15 C
≥ 20 C
≥ 25 C
≥ 30 C
≥ 35 C
≥ 40 C
≥ 45 C
≥ 50 C
≥ 55 C

Minimum Wind Chill

Proposed colors

Category	Color
< -73.33 C (-100 F)
≥ -73.33 C (-100 F)
≥ -67.78 C (-90 F)
≥ -62.22 C (-80 F)
≥ -56.67 C (-70 F)
≥ -51.11 C (-60 F)
≥ -45.56 C (-50 F)
≥ -40 C (-40 F)
≥ -34.44 C (-30 F)
≥ -28.89 C (-20 F)
≥ -23.33 C (-10 F)
≥ -17.78 C (0 F)
≥ -12.22 C (10 F)
≥ -6.67 C (20 F)
≥ -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ 4.44 C (40 F)
≥ 10 C (50 F)
≥ 15.56 C (60 F)

Maximum Apparent Temperature (heat index)

Proposed colors

Category	Color
< -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ 4.44 C (40 F)
≥ 10 C (50 F)
≥ 15.56 C (60 F)
≥ 21.11 C (70 F)
≥ 26.67 C (80 F)
≥ 32.22 C (90 F)
≥ 37.78 C (100 F)
≥ 43.33 C (110 F)
≥ 48.89 C (120 F)
≥ 54.44 C (130 F)
≥ 60 C (140 F)
≥ 65.56 C (150 F)
≥ 71.11 C (160 F)

Space Weather

Scales

Scales explained here. Noah^Talk 15:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Radio Blackouts

Proposed colors

Category	Color
R1 Minor	Cat 1 Color
R2 Moderate	Cat 2 Color
R3 Strong	Cat 3 Color
R4 Severe	Cat 4 Color
R5 Extreme	Cat 5 Color

Solar Radiation Storms

Proposed colors

Category	Color
S1 Minor	Cat 1 Color
S2 Moderate	Cat 2 Color
S3 Strong	Cat 3 Color
S4 Severe	Cat 4 Color
S5 Extreme	Cat 5 Color

Geomagnetic Storms

Proposed colors

Category	Color
G1 Minor	Cat 1 Color
G2 Moderate	Cat 2 Color
G3 Strong	Cat 3 Color
G4 Severe	Cat 4 Color
G5 Extreme	Cat 5 Color

Development discussion

Please discuss ideas for these topics here. Noah^Talk 14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on parameters specific to these events? Scales used in other countries? Keep in mind these scales currently here would ONLY be used within infoboxes and are designed to match up with the maps produced by the National Weather Service. Additionally, this is not optional. We have to at a minimum develop and implement the infoboxes for these events above that do not have infoboxes. We already have the basics created such as met history and effects. Noah^Talk 15:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, with the minimal participation on this project for the past year, I don't expect there to be much comments on this. Might as well just implement these scales boldly and see who screams. I do have one comment though: please avoid using high-saturation colors. This isn't an image or graphic map; the colors need to properly contrast with text. Blindly following the colors that the NWS uses without considering how it would actually  look in front of text  would be a mistake. Chlod (say hi!) 01:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: It's likely we would just use white text in these cases like other projects do. Earthquakes, for example, switches between white and black text depending on which is more accessible.  This does work Noah^Talk 03:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Very Moist (Palmer)
Other text here...

@Hurricane Noah: Yeah, but this (even if it's AAA) looks... bad... I'm sure other editors would carry the same sentiment. Most infobox templates only use desaturated or pastel colors because it's easier on the eyes. The only exception I can find that's in wide use is {{Infobox YouTube personality}} (but even then, the background is dark enough that white can comfortably fit on top of it). It gets worse if you add links into the mix. Chlod (say hi!) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We unanimously agreed (at least a small group did during the colors debate; you did support said proposal) not to include any links within the colored portions of infoboxes due to that being issue with colors already in use as well as potential new colors. Nearly all the infoboxes you linked would not compare since they aren't trying to convey information with the colors. The colors are solely aesthetic in nature rather than trying to provide information. Considering it's only a number or a few words at most someone would need to read, it shouldn't cause that much eye strain. It would be much different if it was the infobox background or a page background. You run into problems with temperature scales where you have nearly two dozen colors or in the case of climate tables, it needs to adjust for any value put in. The climate tables use colors like this, such as at Death Valley#Climate. The issue people take up with pastel or desaturated is they think it looks bad. If there is a feasible solution that keeps the differentiated colors in tact, that would be good. It likely could be taken to the climate box temperatures as well. Anyways, I am going to sleep since I have to get up early to log onto my computer to do class work. Having covid is a big pain in the ass. Noah^Talk 02:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I will work on redoing the colors this week Noah^Talk 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: Are the colors better now? They should all be okay for black text. Noah^Talk 01:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Chlod (say hi!) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the excellent work Chlod has done thus far on {{infobox weather event}} (and its docs; alone deserving of a hearty pat on the back), I'm more than happy to see them taking this all the way. It's not a controversial change to update inline with de facto standards; as long as the appropriate tests are run beforehand and everything works when it's switched over, there'll be no screaming worth a damn. Let me know if I can be helpful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

My comment is that we need to figure which paramaters we really need to present in the final implimentation of these boxes. For example: Do we really need to present the hghest level of warning for every island/country or every single meteorological agencies take on a system, when they are generally speaking the same. (Bar in the WPAC). I also note that the Aus scale as presented needs a bit of work, Cat 5 on the Aus Scale starts at 110 knots (Scientifically 107 kts?) not 111/115 and that 3 of the main warning centres are missing (MetService, Jackarta, PNG).Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Regarding the presentation, the documentation already answers this question.

While the use of the JTWC subbox is generally allowed on all basins besides those which use the Saffir–Simpson scale (North Atlantic/Eastern Pacific/Central Pacific), other agency subboxes [...] should generally be used only when the storm is not recognized by the basin's RSMC.

Regarding the Aus scale, I did not implement this, but Noah did. It's been fixed, and it was a two byte change; no need to mess with many different parts of the template to get it fixed (unlike {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} :P). As for the three other warning centers you mentioned, provide a link to their scales so they can get added. It won't take more than an hour of work. I started off with just those in Tropical cyclone scales, since those are the ones most likely notable. Chlod (say hi!) 01:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in Tropical cyclone scales MetService, PNG NWS and TCWC Jakarta all use the Australian scale, but we need them adding since there are times when systems are monitored by the warning centers at peak rather than Nadi/BoM. As an example, MetService named Eva last year.Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see Template:Infobox weather event/doc § Australian scale for the full list. Chlod (say hi!) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet. I wonder if we could tweak MFR to just MF, as it would be good to present Meteo France French Polynesia's intensity estimate for Cyclone Nisha-Orama in the infobox alongside Nadi's/NPMOC's. In fact thinking about it, I wonder if its worth adding in the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center to the infobox even if their nickname was Never Push Me On Cyclones, as it is their estimates that are used in the SEPAC between 1980 and 2000 rather than the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees and Chlod: I reconfigured the TC watches/warnings to have the link on the warning type (ie Tropical Cyclone at this point, but others will get it later) rather than on the warning itself since it would violate MOS:ACCESS to have the link on certain colors. The plan was to have the highest warning level in the infobox for each event type (TC, flood, cold wave, winter weather, etc). Not sure whether or not we want to continue to use this on events that have ended, but it certainly gives perspective to the land impact a tropical cyclone had since not all storms hit at peak intensity for their winds or a snow storm that had widespread, yet severe impacts that didn't register that high on RSI. Thoughts? Noah^Talk 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be much more beneficial to instead have icons that link to the proper warning system (if an article is available for it) and/or have appropriate alt text, much like how we currently have the NFPA 704 (fire diamond) and GHS pictograms for chemboxes (see Hydroflouric acid). Colored text scattered all over that area is a nightmare, and an easy way to get smacked with {{overcoloured}}. Chlod (say hi!) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Icons are used where they exist. The issue is most do not have icons. Noah^Talk 00:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with having the highest warning level in the infobox for stuff like TC's is the widespread nature of them. For example: are we really wanting to add the highest warning for Micronesia, Palau, The Phillippines/Taiwan, Eastern or Southern China, The Malay Archipeligo or Japan/Korea. Personally it seems very OTT and unneeded.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This might be something that should be !voted on by the project. In my view, it's a good way to quickly categorize the actual damages (compared to storm intensity, which isn't a good indicator for damages) within the infobox, aside from the monetary damages (since inflation and costs of living can skew perception on that figure) or deaths. Whether this is useful for the reader, it depends. Chlod (say hi!) 01:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Icons didn't exist for storm categories, yet they exist anyway. Chlod (say hi!) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: What would you suggest? Colored text icons, B/W icons, ? Noah^Talk 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Overall effects (option 1)
Overall effects (option 2)
HW CW 5

Two ways I can think of to go about this: create icons for each agency (or use existing ones), or include the agency logo and the relevant warning as text. The latter encounters issues with contextualizing the warning though, since we can't link to other pages lest we risk contrast issues. Chlod (say hi!) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MFR box moved to MF, acronym can be changed with |agency=. As for the NPMOC, could definitely make that a box too. There's no limit to what scales we can add in, even if it's historical. If we do plan on adding it in, did they also use SSWHS or a different scale? Chlod (say hi!) 02:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The NPMOC would use the same scale as the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Template:Infobox weather event/NPMOC made! Let me know if we need to add more scales. Chlod (say hi!) 03:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: w/r/t the footer, there's some points you raised in Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone that also apply here. Luckily, I can make it so that the "related" sections appear as if they're in a different box when transcluded, since it always goes at the end of the infobox set anyway. Let me know what you think should be done here. Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I dunno how you're thinking of handling the switchover, but at the end of the day I think it best if the related stuff isn't even remotely part of the infobox; it simply shouldn't be. If you're thinking of a temporary visual separation; consider how temporary can very often unintentionally turn into permanent. As was already said (wherever the hell it was said...) by Gonnym at Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone; related equates to "see also", and as such, belongs in some kind of related series box as can be seen on many other related article series; something like "This article is part of a series of articles about PAGENAME" kinda thing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection

It's pretty damn weird that this entire page has no explicit link to {{infobox weather event}}. Let's try to remember that WP:PERFECTION is not required; perfect is the enemy of good and better will be good. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I am waiting to see why @Jasper Deng: does not like the new infobox, when it makes more sense to use it and is more accessible, easier to edit etc.Jason Rees (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here, but I see a lot of editors just rejecting change because it's change, rather than taking stuff on its own merits. The funny thing is the result of disabling the new template there is so obviously horrible; the only change in data I can see is the completely reasonable rounding of damage costs, but the presentation is rendered, because of that edit, gawd-dammed fugly 🤦‍♀️ Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: There tends to be a lot of resistance to change, especially when things have been the same for so long. This infobox has been largely untouched since 2006. I can attest that it is a huge pain in the ass to attempt to edit it because of the complex and outdated nature of the coding. I tried to make a simple edit last year (removing a link) and ended up breaking something as a result. There tends to be a lot of resistance to any changes. I remember a university prof telling me how professors protested the changeover from quarters to semesters. That went through anyways despite the opposition. Noah^Talk 02:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up; pre lua template code can be enough to drive an editor crosseyed. So many braces @_@ But yeah; change. The weird thing is; if things didn't change the universe would...n't be. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see how the above discussion constitutes "consensus" for moving the infobox's color strip below the image. We can and should use multiple agencies' data but the top of the infobox looks quite bare without the color.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The facts are that our infobox is outdated both coding and style-wise and is cumbersome to edit by nature. We need to bring our infoboxes into line with other infoboxes. Quite frankly, having the color strip above the image is an inconsistency between our infobox and others. Other infoboxes have section headers, which is what the color strip would be in this case. The section header needs to be right above the data that is displayed below it. Our infobox currently does not have section headers period, which is inconsistent. This new infobox also introduces padding, which the lack of is another inconsistency we have. The infobox is outdated coding-wise since it has been largely unchanged since its inception around 2006. Having jumbles of code all in one basket makes it hard to fix issues and add functionality. Using a modular infobox makes it much easier to include new items that we want to showcase in the infobox and eliminates the need to have several infoboxes. While I had started this discussion initially to deal with the topics that didn't have infoboxes, editors outside our project independently brought up issues with the TC template. We are obligated to fix these since our infobox must be consistent with the other ones. Noah^Talk 22:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think it makes more sense to have the colour strip above the intensity information rather than at the top of the infobox away from the various Met stats especially when the met stats directly control the colour stip.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The strip being put above metrics also contextualizes information, so that we have the proper data for varying observation intervals (10-minute or 1-minute) or agencies. Chlod (say hi!) 02:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't any color acting as a code have an accessible key/legend to give it context? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The text put on top of the category (e.g.  Tropical depression ) acts as the label for that header. The color is for presentation. We could do away with it entirely, but it's a very quick and easy way to know how severe a storm was without needing to read the text. Chlod (say hi!) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

With a legend it's quick and easy; without it's just a color. Perhaps a collapsed legend could be included? Too much clutter? If the label terms are linked to an article, then the color legend can be on each article perhaps? No series of articles? That would be odd; perhaps an explanatory page on a suitable WikiProject? Surely there has to be a reader friendly way to provide context for this color; us knowing what it means isn't really very useful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Each scale should link to a relevant agency, with the scale detailed in the article and containing all the colors. If the relevant agency doesn't have the scale in its article yet, we could consider adding in its relevant scale in summary style and link to Tropical cyclone scales as the main page. We could also link to the scale itself on Tropical cyclone scales (or its respective page, if one exists). Which of these would be better (or should we look for other options)? Chlod (say hi!) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant: my brain is being scrambled by lua right now so... How about a note? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This could work, although I feel like there are some who would be opposed to this as it means having to put a 'Notes' section in all existing typhoon articles (or else it will fall to the bottom of the page). Chlod (say hi!) 04:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that I see what's wrong with adding a notes section for notes, an collapsed legend right there in the infobox seems preferable to having readers navigating here and there to simply know what the color represents if a notes section is horrifying. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Could be done as an AWB job if needed. Noah^Talk 05:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: Personally I feel that the articles for the warning centers should not contain any major information on the TC scale that they use bar a sentence or two as it isnt relevant to the agency itself.Jason Rees (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If we go with this route, perhaps we can link to Tropical cyclone scales or a relevant article in the link below a scale (e.g. instead of linking to PAGASA in Template:Infobox weather event/PAGASA, we link to Tropical Cyclone Wind Signals) instead? Chlod (say hi!) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that I am not a fan of having the Watches and Warnings in the infobox on a pernament basis, i feel that links to cleaned up versions of Tropical cyclone warnings and watches, Tropical cyclone scales, Tropical Cyclone Wind Signals & Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale would work.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

w/r/t the infobox change, it probably shouldn't have been done until after this discussion has been finished. For the most part, we haven't actually decided that the infobox is ready for use. I think it's worth providing a copy of the box in that revision here though, for example purposes. Chlod (say hi!) 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

w/r/t the top of the infobox looking devoid of color... that's just how every infobox on Wikipedia looks. The 11(?) years of having that same infobox just makes it feel like it's "normal". Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: Have you had time to work on creating the subinfoboxes to handle the storm infobox? Noah^Talk 16:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Not yet; it is currently exam week and I'm only able to do small bursts of wiki work. I will be (temporarily) free from the clutches of the academic cycle of suffering next week (starting February 6); I might be able to work on it then. Chlod (say hi!) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand... I'm in six classes (4 of which have exams in the next two weeks) and have my Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) in 2 weeks. Noah^Talk 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nor'easter
Highest winds	370 km/h (230 mph)

@Hurricane Noah: I've finished {{infobox storm}}. The following templates have been made as a result:

• {{Infobox weather event/Storm}} (generic for any storm type)
• {{Infobox weather event/Winter storm}} (for winter storms, has RSI support)
• {{Infobox weather event/Tornado}} (for single tornadoes)
• {{Infobox weather event/Tornado outbreak}} (for tornado outbreaks)

Nor'easters, and any other storm which does not need special treatment, should use {{Infobox weather event/Storm}} and supply a valid |type=. I'll work on documenting all these after a few hours; as I have some personal matters to attend to. Chlod (say hi!) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Done with documentation. I particularly enjoyed writing Template:Infobox weather event/doc § Generic storms. Chlod (say hi!) 00:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A few things I noticed looking through the documentation for Infobox weather event:

• {{Infobox weather event/MF}} is missing the lowest classification for Zone of Disturbed Weather/Tropical Disturbance.
• Are the colours for typhoon and severe typhoon in {{Infobox weather event/HKO}} supposed to be the same? Would think it should mimic the JMA scale's progression.
• Should there be a parameter for references somewhere in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}}, or maybe at the end of the whole infobox? Though this technically wouldn't needed if all effects are cited in the body, but just to be safe. In the same line of thought, maybe a ref to IBTrACS would be needed to support all agencies' intensity estimates.
• Damage conversions to USD in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} should be rounded to avoid giving the sense of false precision. A source should also be provided for the USD conversion (perhaps a note copying the refs at {{To USD}} would suffice), as that'll likely be brought up at FAC (personal experience here).

Great changes overall and I'm looking forward to getting used to these – I actually prefer the new aesthetic and don't mind the coloured bars in the middle at all. Just want to see some details ironed out before I'm comfortable with supporting implementation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Requesting {{Infobox weather event/CMA}}, since IBTrACS consistently features their estimates for WPAC (scale here).
• A function similar to |damagespost= in {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} would be really useful where the figure is not clear cut and a footnote is needed.

Couple more requests after spending a while fiddling with the box. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• It seems Noah missed the disturbance and ZODW categories for MF.  Fixed in Special:Diff/1141487995.
• The colors are currently incorrect due to a faulty edit request following the color change earlier today. This issue is tracked here.
•  |refs= and |IBTrACS= added to {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} with Special:Diff/1141489888.
•  Damages and losses conversions now bear the same significant figures as its original input with Special:Diff/1141492604. I'm unsure how to implement the reference thing, however. It seems you solved it on Cyclone Berguitta by using a footnote within prose, which seems like the best approach here. Since the data may not always come from the IMF (e.g. see Template:To USD/data/2021 § References, which uses the World Bank and the IRS), it's hard to generate a catch-all parameter to automatically build that reference.
•  Done with Special:Diff/1141494256. You can also create new boxes using the form at Template:Infobox weather event/scale. I've tried to make the process as guided as possible so that any interested editor can make new scale boxes.
• This  exists as |damages-suffix= and |losses-suffix=. Documentation has been updated to promote those parameters.

@KN2731: Thank you for your suggestions! Feel free to mention anything else you want with the boxes. Chlod (say hi!) 10:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That looks great Chlod, thanks a lot! The placement of the IBTrACS link and references at the bottom of the effects box looks especially inspired. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: Would this be able to be implemented by bot? Noah^Talk 00:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Definitely; just need to finish cleaning up and adding TemplateData, and I'll work on a bot for this. Don't mind the signature. It's 4-01. click on my userpage haha please (say hi!) 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: I am working on doing the color part of this. I have the Drought and Space Weather colors added to the sandbox for the module. Noah^Talk 01:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Phase 2: RfCs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For the general RFC: considered broadly, there is a consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template. There is only one major objection stated, which relates to the location of the colour bar, which will be more towards the middle of the infobox. Most of these arguments boil down to some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with the one exception being that it increases scroll time to get to the relevant information. I did not find this argument very convincing, given that on most platforms, either the majority of the box will be visible (PC and tablet), or users will be forced to scroll past it anyway(mobile). Either way, there is a clear support for the majority of new features implemented. This obviously does not prohibit a future discussion about the placement of the disputed element.

For the event colours: there is a clear consensus that the colours for the yet-to be agreed upon infoboxes will be implemented. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

It has been brought to our attention that our infoboxes do not follow the standard practices of Wikipedia and thus a replacement has been devised that addresses the concerns raised. The current infoboxes lack padding and have multiple colored bars at the top, which is inconsistent with how other infoboxes are displayed. Another issue is that our infoboxes involve a complex coding array that makes it difficult to edit and add new features. Some features within these infoboxes are outdated and should be replaced by newer ones. Additionally, we had to remove links to scales within the colored bars on the tropical cyclone infobox because they violated WP:ACCESS due to lack of contrast with the background; the lack of a link to the scales is a disservice to our readers. The proposed infobox, Template:Infobox weather event, includes the addition of padding, has the colored bars (Category of a storm/event) with their respective data (consistency with other infoboxes), contains new features and some existing ones have been updated, and is much easier to edit since it's modular (each scale has its own subtemplate) rather than several different scales and events lumped into one template with if statements. Please see that template for its usage and display. Please see Template:Infobox storm, Template:Infobox tropical cyclone, and Template:Infobox flood for their displays and usages. Noah^Talk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox to replace Infobox tropical cyclone, Infobox storm, and Infobox flood

Should the proposed infobox replace the infoboxes for tropical cyclones, storms, and floods? Noah^Talk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC general discussion

Please discuss here. Noah^Talk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:SNOWCLOSE no brainer. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Approve: I like the proposed replacement.

—¿philoserf? (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support As nominator. Noah^Talk 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Per Fred Gandt, obvious support. Chlod (say hi!) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I support the changes to padding, to code, all the new features, etc., but strongly oppose moving the color bar to the middle of the infobox. I understand the argument that it's better located with the intensity information and more consistent with other infoboxes across Wikipedia, but it is a jarring change, particularly since it's a brightly colored bar surrounded by two otherwise gray bars. Even though inconsistency is reduced, I don't think anything is functionally gained from that change, and so I oppose on aesthetic grounds. Like I said, I would support all other changes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  There wouldn't be any way to distinguish data in the infoboxes if that's the case. You'd have two different scales next to each other without indication. It's also redundant in templating, since there's no way to "store variables" to make the bar pop up at the top of the page using a template that appeared later on in the page. WPWX (and WPTC, by proxy), owing to its age, is currently the only project to put intensities of an event at the top of the page, contrary to literally every other event infobox in existence. Earthquakes don't have a wide bar, and instead have colored text (see 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 1923 Great Kantō earthquake). Volcano eruptions are similar, but they don't even color text at all (see 2021–22 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami, 2009 Tonga undersea volcanic eruption). WPWX/WPTC has been hilariously behind in modernizing its style to comply with the rest of the wiki; holding it back on "aesthetic grounds" is contrary to the aesthetic style of every other event infobox which has intensities on Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Unless I misread your comment, I'm a little confused by you linking to the volcano articles, both of which have the colored bars at the top (which I below is the correct move). Hurricanes are singularly categorized by their intensity, and I think having that information at the top/the first thing that catches the reader's eye is important. I'm no coder, but I think a better design would be to have the color bar at the top and to also make the agencies into gray bars. Maybe change the names to something like "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" or something similar. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I see the difference. The headers are colored orange regardless of intensity (which is quite strange). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Wxtrackercody: Yes, the title is colored, but it does not represent the Volcanic Explosivity Index of that event. They are always brown (specifically #F6DA9F, see for yourself). Pacific and Atlantic hurricanes are the only cases where one color is used. For NIO, WPAC, SWIO, AUS, SPAC (i.e. every other basin), multiple intensities are used—and these locations are where the majority of cyclones form yearly. Again, the color bar at the top means redundancy. A parameter needs to be passed into the header and at the body of the infobox, because of how templates work. "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" are highly technical terms that would not benefit readers; the agency is better suited for this (and that's exactly what the new box does). Chlod (say hi!) 02:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not married to the terms, we can come up with alternatives. Listing the specific agencies in those headers is fine with me too. I will continue to oppose any solution that does not have the chief categorization for a hurricane at the top, though. Just to drive my previous point home, I do not care that other templates display the information differently, because it's my opinion that they should conform to how we display hurricane information, not the other way around. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who works on templates of other projects, it'd be a shame if {{Infobox person}} (WP:WPBIO; 456,381 uses) placed the profession/occupation of the person at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox officeholder}} (WP:PLT; 208,216 uses) mentioned the highest position a certain person was elected at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox animanga}} (WP:A&M; 6,636 uses) were to indicate whether a manga had reached its anime adaptation. To be absolutely clear: you are essentially asking to go against implicit consensus amongst template editors on how infoboxes should be constructed. WPWX is not the biggest WikiProject on Wikipedia; all the aforementioned projects have thousands of more articles under their scope than WPWX. And if you've spent some time working on the templates of this project, we're not exactly the cutting edge of template design here, not by a longshot. Chlod (say hi!) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Wxtrackercody: Maybe its about time we had a think/discussion about how best to display hurricane information, after all at the moment its all based around the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific, rather than what most of the basins need. It is also worth noting that sometimes when a system impacts land the modern day RSMC categorization isnt the most official or the best categorization. As an example, I present Cyclone Ofa and Val which impacted American Samoa and thus considered to be Hurricanes and are rated on the SSHWS. I also look at Cyclone Veena and Cyclone Nisha-Orama where Meteo France/RSMC La Reunion have reanalysed the systems to be VITC/ITC's. As a result, I feel that the infobox being proposed while not perfect is better than what we currently have in play and thus I support its immediate deployment.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Wxtrackercody: I personally believe that having the coloured bars in the middle of the infobox allows us to be clearer on whose intensity estimates we are presenting while keeping in line with the rules of Wikipedia. As an example, I tested it out on Severe Tropical Cyclone Veena of 82-83 and got the following result. The other option is to get rid of the coloured bar alltogether.Jason Rees (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Wxtrackercody. United States Man (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Two recent oppositions = WP:IDONTLIKEIT Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like this is another instance of the project being taken in the wrong direction and would appreciate if you didn't interject with comments directed toward me. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Opposition per anything is deference to that anything. This is not a vote therefore two counts of the same thing is not a stronger argument and the only argument made was that everything would be great if not for the not liking it. I am not interjecting any more than you and was not speaking directly to or about you; I am responding to the discussion as I see it. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid or reasoned argument, you offered nothing else and this is not a vote. If you don't want to be involved in discussions, don't join them. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like I struck a nerve lol. Never seen someone get so excited over nothing. If I share the same viewpoint as another editor, why would I retype the same exact argument? United States Man (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, opposing on the grounds of how information is displayed to the reader is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't even apply here since this is not a deletion discussion. Hurricanes are categorized based on their strength. This information has been displayed at the top of the infobox since its inception. That makes sense, and I think it should continue. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  IDONTLIKEIT is a comment on the weight of an argument. It doesn't matter if it's a deletion discussion—you'd be reading too much into the letters of the essay if that were the case. Our colors have also stayed the same since inception. Have we never changed those colors since then? Chlod (say hi!) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not gain by moving the color bar down, or generally by obscuring information, making it harder for readers. Unlike with the track colors, there is no compelling accessibility reason to do this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Users don't have a scroll bar? Chlod (say hi!) 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Using the scroll bar takes time. The smallest amounts of time matter for UX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This makes our infobox more in line with Template:Infobox officeholder/example or even the Template:Infobox military conflict. It's time for change and not sticking to the past. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Assuming all important parameters are included, I have no objections.

This new Infobox is visually attractive and presents a better understanding of the information than the older infoboxes. While the replacement process can be time-consuming, I believe it would be worth it. This Infobox will be easier for editors to maintain and update as needed (rather than using many different Infoboxes). I would also like to suggest that, it would be helpful to provide some examples of what the new infobox might look like and to include template data, which would be useful for making visual edits. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. As an uninvolved editor, it seems the new infobox has a ton of advantages over the old infoboxes, and the only reason for opposition is a relatively minor aesthetic/ux choice. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Colors for new events

Should the colors proposed above be implemented for the events that currently do not have their own infoboxes? These colors will only be used in infoboxes and related templates, but not elsewhere. Please note that the infoboxes for these new events have yet to be designed and will be subject to a new RfC before being implemented. Additionally, several of these scales are proposed to be pegged to the values at Module:Storm categories rather than having new colors proposed.

1. Palmer Index
2. U.S. Drought Monitor Scale
3. Actual Temperature (For heat/coldwaves)
4. Minimum Wind Chill
5. Maximum Apparent Temperature (heat index)
6. Radio Blackouts
7. Solar Radiation Storms
8. Geomagnetic Storms

Do you approve of the colors for the new events listed above? Noah^Talk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC colors discussion

Please discuss here. Noah^Talk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Noah^Talk 04:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Let's end this. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support As I said above, I appreciate the use of color coding to distinguish different types of information, which makes it easier to read and understand.

Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Phase 3: Additional Development

Overview of Supported Scales

All scales listed are to be assumed as currently supported unless otherwise mentioned. Noah^Talk 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones

• NWS
• JMA
• MF
• IMD
• Australian Scale
• JTWC
• NPMOC
• PAGASA
• HKO
• CMA

Winter

• RSI
• Canadian wind chill exposure risk (planned; Colors in module)
• Wind chill [US: based on values] (planned; Colors in module)
• Beaufort [Windstorms] (planned; Colors in module)

Tornadoes

• EF/F
• Torro
• IF

Heat/Drought/Temp

• Heat Index [US] (Planned; Colors in module)
• Heat Index: values for outside US (planned; Colors in module)
• Temperature: values (planned; Colors in module)
• Palmer Index (planned; Colors in module)
• Drought scale (planned; Colors in module)

Floods

• Atmospheric River scale (planned; Colors in module)

Space Weather

• Geomagnetic Storms (planned; Colors in module)
• Solar Radiation Storms (planned; Colors in module)
• Radio Blackout (planned; Colors in module)

Haze

• Air Quality Index (planned)

Current Infobox Scales - Not already included above

• Red Flag Threat Index (planned; Colors in module)
• Storm Prediction Center: Fire Weather Risk (planned; Colors in module)
• Storm Prediction Center: Severe Weather Risk (planned; Colors in module)
• SPIA Ice Damage Index (planned; Colors in module)
• Winter Storm Severity Index
• Oceanic Niño Index (planned; Colors in module)

Discussion

Moved to Template talk:Infobox weather event

I'd like to point out that issues with the infobox or any subbox should be made at Template talk:Infobox weather event. I watch this page and it helps clear out clutter from an otherwise unrelated discussion area. I'll be moving comments there shortly to clean up. Chlod (say hi!) 03:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Chlod (say hi!) 03:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod: Are there any other scales that deserve to be included? Noah^Talk 15:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Maybe the Oceanic Niño Index like shown here for La Niña/El Niño pages. Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)