Template talk:California wildfires

Colour
I have fixed the contrast issues per WP:COLOUR. 173.197.107.20 (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't fix the issue that just eliminates all color. If you want to fix it then update the colors, don't just remove all of them! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:DEVIATIONS, there is no reason for anything other than the default. 173.197.107.20 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An earlier version of the template used a slightly different color scheme that I believe is compliant with WP:COLOR... TEST, TEST, TEST. Thoughts? -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, the default Navbox colour scheme isn't WP:COLOUR-compliant . Alakzi (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHA!!! THAT IS FREAKING EPIC! Uh #Irony anyone?!?! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Template talk:Navbox. Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the current incarnation of the template fails WP:COLOR itself, I would strongly vote changing it back to use the sandybrown color scheme that is used by multiple other templates:, ,. There are plenty of examples all over wikipedia of nav boxes that are different colors, just check out University of Notre Dame. There are at least 4 different color schemed navboxes there. I see no reason at all not to revert this back to its original color scheme. ( any thoughts?) Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * I don't have an issue with navboxes using a different colour scheme, but meeting WP:COLOUR seems entirely possible. X does Y wrong so we should too is not a convincing argument. Alakzi (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't comment specifically on this situation per WP:INVOLVED except to say trying to meet WP:COLOR is usually always good. --Neil N  talk to me 19:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thats a fair point but if the default template, that is used in 95% of the cases doesn't meet WP:COLOR what is the point? Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * We're trying to fix it. :) Alakzi (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was looking through the history to try to see the difference and everything was lavender. What is the disputed color? —Мандичка YO 😜 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * see this revision. It wont actually display the colors tho so...
 * Ah thank you. I prefer the sandy brown/orange color. I'm not a fan of lavender everywhere and think colors should be customized when possible. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For comparison and discussion purposes....

And these are the colours I'd proposed, which satisfy WP:COLOUR, for comparison:

Alakzi (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the lighter version as it stops looking being orange and looks very very beige, like the "skin color" beige crayon. I have no problem reading the text in the first color set. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't for your benefit; it is for the benefit of people who are variously vision-deficient. Alakzi (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If we want to keep the original colour scheme, then how about this:

Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that WP:COLOR states "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The AA level requires a 4.5:1 ratio while AAA requires 7:1. The original color scheme is AA compliant. I really think this is just a bit hoopla about something that really isn't a big deal. We should all, myself included, remember Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Again I say revert this back to its original state. The title of the navbox is AA compliant and the rest of the navbox is AAA compliant (which is more than can be said about most navboxes on here). At the very least, the template should be restored back to the way it was before an anonymous user came in and reverted. IF a consensus is reached that the colors should be changed, I will certainly standby that consensus as that time. I believe this is the proper process after all: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. A change was made, it was reverted, now lets discuss it... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * Oh, FFS. WP:COLORWAR is only relevant where accessibility is not compromised. The title background is not even AA-compliant . The proper process is to stay fucking put. It's now been reverted again for what, the eighth time? Alakzi (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the last line of WP:COLORWAR? This is hardly "a bit hoopla about something that really isn't a big deal" to someone whose vision means they can't read text that isn't AAA compliant. One day, that may well include you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Alakzi's proposed color scheme. The fact is we have a proposed color scheme that complies with WP:COLOR and an existing color scheme that does not. Local consensus is not acceptable in overriding a guideline. This should be changed to the AAA compliant scheme with haste. ~ RobTalk 10:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Alakzi's proposal. I see no reason not to maintain default colours (notwithstanding an issue with Navbox that is in the process of being fixed) - the current colours seem to bear no obvious relation to either California or wildfires. But if we must, and given that there has been no AAA-compliant counter-proposal, then I agree with Rob. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support proposed version per WP:COLOR. I don't have clear personal preferences here, so I am also willing to support alternatives that comply to WP:COLOR to same extent as Alakzi's proposal.--Staberinde (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With the exceptionally low level of professionalism and extremely short fuse demonstrated by who seems incapable of having a conversation without swearing and insulting other editors, I'm no longer interested in taking part in this debate.  I know you protected the page to prevent continued edit warring. I cannot speak for  but I will not make any additional changes to the color. I disagree with the decision but as I previously stated, I will happily bow to consensus. Bottom line, I don't really care anymore. It would be nice to have the template unprotected so that I can continue to add new fires/pages to the template and I say again that I will not be making any additional changes to the colors.  Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * You are - of course - blameless; recruiting uninformed editors to edit war on your behalf to reinstate WP:COLOUR violations is not an issue at all. The only reason you're now withdrawing from the debate is that you're outnumbered. But your position is indefensible; you simply refuse to understand why WP:ACCESS is important. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think my favorite part of this is that the version of the template you want to be present is not even compliant to WP:COLOUR itself... ( I'm curious if you have thoughts on this since you commented to support the current scheme above). I invited another level headed editor I had dealt with in the past to take a look at the debate.  has been an editor for nearly a decade and I respect her opinion. Additionally, as I clearly stated with this edit, if a consensus was reached I would respect it. That isn't with drawing because I am outnumbered. That is respecting the system. I am one person, you are one person. I didn't think it was beneficial for us to just spit back and forth and each other. Other leveler heads came in and stated their views. I don't necessarily agree but that's how wikipedia works. If want to continue your negative tones, short fuse and personal attacks, go for it! Makes no difference to me. With that I end my comments on this thread.  Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * That's not Alakzi's proposed color scheme. That's the default he put in place while discussing. See above for the lighter tone color scheme he proposed. ~ RobTalk 17:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And, for the billionth time, AA compliance is better than no compliance. Alakzi (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I have a hard time taking anyone with this extensive of a block log and who explicitly forbids admins from posting on their talk page that seriously. Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument anywhere in this thread, let alone the billionth. Interestingly enough for that to be the billionth... If you stated that once a second, every second of every day it would take you 31.69 years, or roughly 1.1 Saturn years (gotta love Wolfram Alpha). Since wikipedia has only been around for about 14.5 years, I think we are exaggerating just a little bit... ;-) my bad. I was referring to the current state of the template that Alakzi kept reverting it back to.  Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * Back to the color scheme. The proposed colors are so washed out and blah, they are too peachy and need to add more Y to be the intended orange (to represent fire, the whole point of the color scheme!), not peach/tan. The default lavender is better than those. It's seriously not that hard to pick a suitable palette that is visually attractive and meets accessibility. I would suggest a darker burnt orange like around #B65524/#fff text, and choose complementing colors such as #ffcc33 etc for the other colors. And Alakzi is was lovely to see you apologize for your personal attacks on us. I accept your apology.  —Мандичка YO 😜 17:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see also my 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC) demo. We could sample more vibrant colours, so long as they're not on the background of the title text. Alakzi (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, I don't expect you to take me seriously; I expect you to take accessibility seriously. Also that would actually the first time you have made that argument ... I said it at 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC), and I've said it elsewhere. You appear to have got the hang of Snook's tool, so you could've gone into the tiniest effort to check. Alakzi (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If the bickering could stop for a bit: Is anyone going to muck around with colors in the next day if I lift protection so content can be added? --Neil N  talk to me 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU . and anyone else interested, can we all agree to not change the colors from the current navbox default until a clear consensus is reached? For better or for worse, the default navbox is the default.  Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * Agreed, I would suggest leaving colors at the default for 5 days to allow time for more comments. Having said that, if nothing changes, there is already consensus to make the change. Failing additional opposition to the change, I imagine we will swap to Alakzi's proposed solution after that period. ~ RobTalk 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the bright colour can't be used as a background if it is compliant, which these colours are. There are tons of templates like that (think sports teams and universities). Plus, the whole point to having the orange/reddish template is because it is for fires. IMO is much better to have the default template than one that is a very muted peach/tan.  My suggestion:

I would think something like that would work. you are the fire guy, your opinion is still appreciated here :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The brown on white is not AAA compliant (see here). It could be slightly altered to be compliant with #A13013 (see here). Personally, though, I think the brighter oranges are more related to fire than brown. ~ RobTalk 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COLOUR, changing the colours of links is discouraged, as they are no longer identifiable as links. Alakzi (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we do change link colors (not saying we should), then the original color scheme works with black links. That would be identical to omitting links, in my opinion, since no-one will click on a black link. ~ RobTalk 13:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK now it's compliant in all categories. It is supposed to be reddish, not brown. I don't see why changing the colors of links is discouraged - who can't see them as links? If it's color compliant than you cover people with color blindness; plus it's text so a screen reader would have no problem knowing it's a link. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just by looking at it, how would you know that it's a link? Colour is the only cue. Alakzi (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. we shouldn't be changing the colour of the links.  Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What? You wouldn't know it's not a link because it's not "blue"? Do you not know that hyperlinks can be any and all colors and often are, including on Wikipedia? CSS anyone? Additionally, there is no rule stating that links need to be blue because it's not 1995 and we're not using Mozilla 1.0 while watching new episodes of Friends.   —Мандичка YO 😜 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that links need to be distinguishable from plain text, and hence need to be consistent in some form or another. They could all be the same colour, or they could all be shrouded in a magic cloud. Wikipedia has opted for the former. Alakzi (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Having links of different color is not anything close to "magic" or I'm some kind of magician. It's very, very common in web design and on Wikipedia. Many templates have different colored links, so it's not any kind of policy, so Wikipedia has not "opted" for anything of the sort. And many nav boxes of different colors are often stacked on top of each other as well, and I seriously don't see how anyone would find it confusing or not know they are links. Please see the nav templates at Major League Baseball and Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, both of which are Good Articles. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * People might be able to guess that they are links after sufficient exposure to navboxes, but there's no way to tell by looking at them. It's bad usability. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. the colouring here is purely decorative. we should have a good reason for changing it, or just use the default. the default colouring for navbox does meet accessibility standards for me after [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Frietjes/common.css&oldid=673934760 changes to my personal css file].  it's a wonderful option for visually impaired users like me. Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

can we get the page unprotected now? I'd really like to get back to adding more fires to the infobox. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Neil N  talk to me 21:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we please rediscuss this template? ? I think the red and yellow look perfectly acceptable, so much better than purple or the proposed peach. I'm open to other suggestions. The reasons given above by the dearly departed Alakzi ("all links must be blue") is clearly not any kind of policy nor any rationale. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * honestly... I'm so over this. The color looks just fine the way it is. I really don't see a reason to give it any different color. Not saying I firmly oppose it just not something I care enough about to put much time into again. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging Template:California wildfires by size
So on a new topic, what do people think about merging Template:California wildfires by size into this template? Creating a third collapsible section? That template just lists the 20 largest fires in California history. Seems like it could be merged in. I'm neutral and could go either way on but curious what others think. (And please, lets not discuss the color differences....). -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with a merge if and only if the section on wildfires by size was displayed only on pages that it links to. This could be achieved with an on/off switch parameter. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL for the spirit of why this would be desirable. ~ RobTalk 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Short protection to stop edit warring and avoid blocking. Please adhere to WP:3RR and file a report or notify an admin before you break WP:3RR yourself. --Neil N  talk to me 16:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. The user was vandalising the page and was informed multiple times to discuss the changes. I don't think it is fair to lock the page for all editors because a single anonymous user decided to repeatedly delete content that MULTIPLE editors were reverting. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * user Zakman vandalising the page repeatedly duplicated the years in the different sections trying to make a huge navbox instead of one-section clear template. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all learn how to copy a user name... Its written right there. And second, I didn't duplicate them. They were already there. You came in and removed the content without discussing it. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally both and  reverted your edits as well. So are all three of us vandals? -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know the math? One year = one link in the navbox. Not two or three. What is the reason to create the second level with years when the template already had the same links on the left side? 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. You trying to get advantage against ip user creating different admin requests. That users reacted on such named "removal content" only without any description, reasons and arguments. Standard violation of ip user rights. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Again, if I block the IP for breaking 3RR, you're looking at a block as well. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, what is the correct procedure to remove the second duplicative level of this navbox now? Years already present in a brief version. No any arguments against. It's a absolutely correct removing of unneeded level. What I must do to remove it? 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Get consensus for your change. Please do not remove it again without discussion talking place. There's no hurry so wait to see if other editors have a different viewpoint. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Awkward sentence
This sentence on the project page is awkward: "For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template" Checkingfax (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very funny description made by Zakman. Documentation is very bad. Structure is very bad. My proposition. Section "list of years" must be removed, because the years are already linked on the left side, do you agree? 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * please stop making personal attacks against me. I am not the only one who worked on this template so saying that I made a "funny description" is just plain wrong. Also that is NOT what is said. What is says is:

For the pages that list of fires for each year (Wildfires in California by year), should be used which will automatically expand the list section of the template.
 * You should actually know the facts before attacking an editor. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the top section, lists by year, be removed?
So some history on this template. Originally there were Multiple different templates, one for each year. For example 2014 California wildfires:

As the pages grew, it was suggested by many editors, including (I believe) and  that these be merged into one template. (I don't feel like tracking down the link to that discussion at the moment...) After a discussion a CONSENSUS was reached to merge them. Thus the current incarnation of California wildfires was born. It serves TWO purposes.
 * 1) The top part was meant for pages in the Wildfires in California by year category, which are list pages (such as 2015 California wildfires).
 * 2) The bottom part was meant for individual fire pages. (Rim Fire or Valley Fire).

The current question is Should the top section, lists by year, be removed? I believe there are 3 options....
 * 1) Leave it as it is.
 * 2) Remove it, (the years are after all duplicated in the left side of the second section).
 * 3) Remove it from THIS template, BUT create a second navbox called California wildfires by year that JUST contains that top section.

Please discuss below. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removing the "Lists by year" section. The template could use simplifcation, and this appears to be a reasonable proposition that's got the added benefit of reducing redundancy. I further suggest splitting the template by decade. I'm neutral on whether a new California wildfires by year should replace this one in list articles. Alakzi (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removing the "Lists by year" section and not creating a second one. Each list is already linked from the corresponding group in the bottom section. APerson (talk!) 00:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removing the list by year section and making one collapsible template. For now I do not support splitting it up by decade. I would suggest that we first remove the top section and consolidate the template a bit. If at that point there are still issues with it being too big and all that, we should absolutely discuss splitting by decade. Does that sound good? -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cedar Fire of 2003 should be included
I was looking at the article Bel Air Fire and noticed that among the California wildfires at the end of the article, the Cedar Fire (2003) was missing. The Cedar Fire was hugely destructive - lots more homes than the Bel Air fire - and its Wikipedia article is quite good. So, it certainly should appear. I don't think I've ever edited a template, and I'd rather not learn how just now. So, would someone else please make this fix? Oaklandguy (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
In group 25, please change: York to York, thanks. 2A00:23EE:15F8:3F31:902F:59FF:FE15:F39B (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)