Template talk:Table cell templates/Archive 2

Template-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
Please replace all code in Won with sandbox code

Changes:
 * Color for place=won (default) minimally tweaked to provide enough contrast (WCAG AAA level) against blue links, as was done recently for Yes
 * Color for place=3 tweaked to to provide enough contrast (WCAG AA level) against blue links
 * Color names replaced with color codes, allowing a simplification of template calls

It may be useful to check the for a step-by-step breakdown of the changes.

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , it looks like you removed the ability for a manual color to be defined. Was this intentional? Primefac (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that was really unintentional. I've undone those changes, so I only request the two remaining small color adjustments, please have a look at the diff once more. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 January 2022
Please replace all code in Nom with sandbox code

Change: color minimally tweaked to provide WCAG AAA level contrast against blue links, similar to what was done recently for No2.

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 January 2022
Please replace all code in Won with sandbox code

Change: Added contrast check when background or text color is set in articles. Articles that use color combinations with contrast below WCAG AA are added to a tracking category. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yellow and Green ("Yes" vs "Partial") are hard to distinguish for colorblind people

 * I am colorblind, and find that in the table at Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms it is nearly impossible to distinguish the the {yes} ("legal") and {partial} entries. There was a discussion on color-blindness issues here back in 2010, which seems to have focused on just "yes" vs "no", and thus not considered the "partial" case for the yellow-vs-green distinction. Can this be revisited, leveraging the more recent research at vischeck.com, as recommended by Cynthia Brewer at ColorBrewer updates to improve the palette? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as writers ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information (MOS:COLOR), the exact shade should not be relevant. If you find an article where information requires color, you can change it so that it does not have such requirement. I've recently changed a few to achieve that. I'm not against changing that shade, but there are many types of color blindness and ultimately only changes in lightness can properly embrace all types, and then we're limited to very few options that satisfy WCAG AA or AAA. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Alignment of row header templates
Is there a reason why  and  default to left-aligned, instead of center-aligned like all of the other templates? I don't necessarily object... but even in our regular tables, headers don't default to left-aligned. And it does contradict the TemplateData documentation shared among all of the templates. (Which claims "Default center" for align, without noting the exception(s). So I guess if nothing else, that should be expanded if possible.) FeRDNYC (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's because they are meant to be used for row headers. Table headers are designed for the most common case of column headers, most tables have column headers but do not have row headers.  (see WP:DTT) is for tables using only row headers and also left-aligns. It might make sense to point this out in the template docs. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh! I didn't even register the "row" part of the name! That makes sense, thanks. (But I agree, it's probably worth documenting.) FeRDNYC (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, there's also the fact that and  don't take an unnamed argument, also un-like all the other templates. Right now  that is addressed in the TD, after a fashion, but it's addressed like this:  ...Underwhelming.
 * All in all, while I definitely see the value of sharing documentation between the entire set templates, sharing the same TemplateData doesn't really seem like it's entirely accurate. I wonder if it's worth throwing some template coding into the documentation itself, to apply different TemplateData when it's transcluded into one of the outlier templates? The added complexity wouldn't be ideal, but it's kind of the only way we'll have the correct TemplateData applied to all of them.
 * I may play with it a bit, see if I can come up with anything. (I'm particularly hesitant about any "cleverness" potentially breaking the visual TemplateData editor. Maybe two separate subpages for the different TemplateData, alongside a single shared documentation page, is the better way to go.) FeRDNYC (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2022
Please replace all code in Won with sandbox code

Changes: --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Major: added value, suitable for articles such as List of awards and nominations received by Avril Lavigne and List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears. These articles currently use a colour combination that does not pass WCAG AA, so I'm proposing a darker grey shade that does, such that these articles don't look too different when the new shade is used.
 * Minor: changed web color names with the respective hexadecimal color.
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022
Please replace all code in Nom with sandbox code.

Changes: shade changed from very light yellow to a darker light yellow  matching partial, avoiding a collision with pending as requested in. User:JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note that of my comment by  is against WP:TPO. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It had to be corrected, because I’m not sure why you requested ANOTHER colour change when the last one is still being discussed JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. (WP:TPO) Also Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle (WP:AGF). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I’ll bear that in mind… but I don’t think your faith is good in this situation? Why are you requesting another colour change when there’s still a discussion in process.JosHeartTransplant (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I believe it solves both the problem I presented in and the problem raised by  in .  already agreed this is a possible solution. What other reason could it be? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still other users apart from myself who think the colour should be reverted back to how it was. So it’s not a foregone conclusionJosHeartTransplant (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That should not prevent me from proposing a solution. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * stop changing his request, you can just comment saying you think it's a bad idea in response. Speaking of... This is a bad idea. Another undiscussed change isn't going to help. Get us a stable version and an RfC if you actually care about improvements. Kingsif (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Aren’t you campaigning for the same thing I am. A REVERT. So don’t argue with me, we’re both campaigning for the same result, a revert back to the original nominated colour.JosHeartTransplant (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * JosHeartTransplant has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet acount. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not surprising. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2022 (2)
Please replace all code in Nom with sandbox code.

Changes: class changed from  to   and shade changed from light red  to light yellow  matching some and CFinalist.

Rationale: as contestants advance, they go from longlisted (light blue) to shortlisted (darker light yellow) to nominated (conceptually similar to CFinalist, which is light yellow) to won (light green, gold / colorful yellow, silver or a lighter shade of bronze) or lost (darker light red). Most use it for its default meaning, so the colour change does not affect their content in any significant way. A similar change was implemented in 2019 in, but it was undone because it wasn't discussed.

This change would help solve another problem: this large set of lists uses nom to represent the opposite of nominated: Not Nominated. I would change this set as follows: But nom and no2 have (and have been for a long time) the exact same colour (now, a while ago  ), so the change would make Nominated and Not Nominated indistinguishable in this set, which would likely generate confusion, but the proposed colour change would enable the transition to a more meaningful use of this template.
 * →  and
 * →  (or create  )

Sorry to request another change this soon, but I was unaware of this whole situation. Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Undo this… it should not be the same colour as pending JosHeartTransplant (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Color change in "Nominated"
Could someone please explain the reason why the color for nom has changed from to ? The color change now conflates the colors for pending with nom, which creates some confusion in awards tables. I don't want to make a Template change request without understanding the reason first. No hostility intended. Ajack15 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2022 (CT)
 * Courtesy ping to . Primefac (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See . --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to use the darker colour of partial instead of the new color, although in that case it would also make sense to change CFinalist to that colour for consistency. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Or maybe, if you're not opposed to it, an entirely new shade all together. Just something to make the difference discernible. Ajack15 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2022 (CT)
 * , : How about the same aquamarine shade as unofficial2 (blueish) or good (greenish)? unofficial2 has  class, so it seems to make sense.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Proposed shade ! Basis ! colspan="2" | Similar ! Classes
 * style="background-color:#FFE3E3;" | Previous
 * No2
 * colspan="2" Lost
 * table-no2, table-failure
 * style="background-color:#FFD;" | Current
 * Some
 * Pending
 * table-partial
 * style="background-color:#FFB;" | Proposal 1
 * Partial
 * Shortlisted
 * Won
 * table-partial, table-no2 (shortlisted)
 * style="background-color:#BFE;" | Proposal 2
 * Unofficial2
 * Good
 * Won
 * table-partial, table-yes2 (good)
 * style="background-color:#DFF;" | Proposal 3
 * Included
 * colspan="2"
 * table-included
 * Longlisted
 * colspan="2" Cguest
 * table-no2 (longlisted)
 * }
 * --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the same search strategy as in, the option that has fewest collisions is Proposal 1. shows that 69 articles use both nom and partial. A quick visual inspection of the results reveal that only 14 of them use the two in the same table (compared to 1198 articles that use both nom and pending). Six of them use it for a specific winning place (3rd, 4th) for which won would be better. Another six of them use it for special types of victory such as People's Choice or Honorable mention. One uses it for Runner-up which surely would be better represented by runner-up. And one is a technology-related article using it and other unified table cell templates only for the colour they output, not for their meaning. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @, : I share the concern of Ajack15. Since you, Primefac, as "undiscussed and potentially controversial" in 2019 referring to the discussion at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_162 (which Ftrebien acknowledged in the edit request): Could either of you point me to the discussion/consensus for this current change, if there is one? (I also don't mean to sound snarky, but I just didn't find anything. And if there isn't one, I feel like there should be a discussion prior to making this kind of change, because I think it's quite controversial.) Felida97  (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect this time the change seemed ok because a rationale was offered before attempting to change the template. But I might be wrong. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Longlisted
 * colspan="2" Cguest
 * table-no2 (longlisted)
 * }
 * --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the same search strategy as in, the option that has fewest collisions is Proposal 1. shows that 69 articles use both nom and partial. A quick visual inspection of the results reveal that only 14 of them use the two in the same table (compared to 1198 articles that use both nom and pending). Six of them use it for a specific winning place (3rd, 4th) for which won would be better. Another six of them use it for special types of victory such as People's Choice or Honorable mention. One uses it for Runner-up which surely would be better represented by runner-up. And one is a technology-related article using it and other unified table cell templates only for the colour they output, not for their meaning. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @, : I share the concern of Ajack15. Since you, Primefac, as "undiscussed and potentially controversial" in 2019 referring to the discussion at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_162 (which Ftrebien acknowledged in the edit request): Could either of you point me to the discussion/consensus for this current change, if there is one? (I also don't mean to sound snarky, but I just didn't find anything. And if there isn't one, I feel like there should be a discussion prior to making this kind of change, because I think it's quite controversial.) Felida97  (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect this time the change seemed ok because a rationale was offered before attempting to change the template. But I might be wrong. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The only reason I’ve entered this discussion is because I viewing someone’s page and was shocked to see the Nominated column had changed and was immediately mislead. Why has it been changed from anyway. Undo this User:Primefac. No idea why this has been suggested, let alone actually carried out by an administrator when it’s the same colour as Pending. JosHeartTransplant (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to have an idea, read thoroughly. Don't be "shocked" about colors, MOS:COLOR says Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. If an article depends on color to convey information, it should be rewritten to avoid this. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Don’t ‘tell me’ whether I can be shocked or not. I’m representing the general public, not the Wikipedia nerds, and the clear difference between Red And Green on the Nominated and Won sections are made clear by color. If articles didn’t need color, then it wouldn’t be used on Wikipedia in the first place, what a daft comment.JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * And as for my idea… WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it.. put Nominated back to .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosHeartTransplant (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia nerds? what a daft comment? WP:CIV, WP:HOTHEADS. It was broken as I already explained, please help find a solution, not perpetuate a problem. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with other comments and the reason for the discussion being opened. But it goes further than being unnecessary. Color isn't the only thing used to convey the information "nominated", however, now that it is the same color as "pending", the purpose of the colors (to aid a broad view/comparison) is not just defunct, it has become actively misleading. It would be better if there were no colors than the current. Changing the colors with these two templates specifically is likely to lead to misunderstandings. The reddish color was for nominations that were not won, where being nominated alone is a notable achievement, while the yellowish pending color is for nominations that haven't yet been decided. The likelihood of someone unaware of where Wikipedia makes the distinction and who only looks at the table/doesn't read the explanation assuming that "nominated" is synonymous with "pending" is high - and they might go about changing the templates so all pendings become noms or vice versa, because the identical color and similar meaning off-wiki leads them to believe it is the same thing but inconsistent, trying to be helpful. Because we can already change the text of these templates, to indicate specific placings etc, with the color basically affirming that "2nd" and "runner-up" are the same, that "listed" and "won" are the same, that "shortlisted" and "nominated" are the same. But "nominated" and "pending" are, as we use them, not the same. Ping to hopefully expedite reversal of the actively misleading change (read above): maybe the color is better for accessibility, but it is misleading to the point that the accessibility advantage is totally negated - it would be better to have no color so that the two different but similar things don't look equal. For the same reasons, please reverse the changes to the "longlisted" template (and any others I haven't noticed) - that one is now the same color as "runner-up", but the outcome is wildly earlier in the process and not equal. I'd also ask that nobody unilaterally accept edit requests of color change until there has been discussion so these issues are avoided in future, even if the request was in good faith. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * longlisted and runner-up are not the same colour and they have been adjusted according to MOS:COLOR. Can you explain why runner-up is not the same colour as ? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then they are so similar they render the same on low-res screens and fly in the face of accessibility anyway. Runners up are for when there is one winner, 2nd is for when there are e.g. podium rankings, like a silver medal, where fourth place/eleventh/however the judges have ordered it would be considered the runner-up. Humans are weird and we did a pretty good job of distinguishing how confusingly humans rank things. As you wrote, If an article depends on color to convey information, it should be rewritten to avoid this, so, surely, in the same vein, if information is obscured by use of color, it should be changed to avoid this. Just reading "nominated" is clear, but then someone notices it is the same color as "pending" and gets confused, wondering if the meaning is different. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, see . Also look above where I propose 3 different solutions to this issue without needing to revert to the old colour. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the section to discuss it? No. And do you not want to revert to a stable, useful, version, for the time being while we hash out a color scheme? Why not? And, you say you based those options on existing colors, again, too similar to work on some screens anyway. Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And do you not want to revert to a stable, useful, version, for the time being while we hash out a color scheme? Why not? Already explained in.
 * And, you say you based those options on existing colors, again, too similar to work on some screens anyway. The same is true for the old shade, which collides with no2. As explained in, it is not very logical to assign red to an outcome that is better than shortlisted and longlisted. What if instead we assign red to shortlisted and shortlisted's light gold to nom? Even so, red normally has a negative connotation, that's why it's the colour of no2. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't just be asking me to get on board with your idea. You should be starting an RfC, maybe here or at the Awards WikiProject (?), to hear opinions on the best course of action from other people, especially those who use these templates regularly. These templates are so widely-used that the solution is not the one user who has finally been called up on making unilateral changes lobbying those complaining to support him - i.e. it needs more than a local consensus, especially when we're not even in an open discussion here. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Kingsif is saying, and I think you missed the original point earlier. Even though you've explained your rationale, there seems to be some controversy around it, so WP:BRD tells us we should revert the edit to its original state until consensus can be reached. FWIW, I think a change might be in order, but not as a unilateral move by one person, given the widespread use of this template. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. I believe we are discussing the possibility of a refinement. I've proposed a refinement quickly to try to prevent an escalation, and I now know the real size of the problem (see ). With the problem being somewhat infrequent, I suspect that a refinement is less work for everyone. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding the point of that line, in my opinion. The line seems to imply that if you can improve an edit, do it; for instance, if a user misspells numerous words when adding information, fix the spelling instead of reverting the edit. What has been proposed with the color changes is not a refinement, but a major change. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the color collision with pending is not a refinement. But the change in is a refinement since it does not collide. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be a refinement under BRD if someone else was doing it, but since you're changing your own edit, I don't find it to be the same thing. To put it briefly, the current consensus seems to be that the edit should be reverted, and it almost certainly would have been reverted already if the page wasn't protected. Again, I don't think anyone is outright rejecting your proposal, but it deserves more deliberation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A late note ont longlisted vs runner-up: though they are not exactly the same colour, shows they only appear together in four articles, and in one of them runner-up is used for 3rd place which would be better represented by . --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that "shortlisted" and "nominated" are the same I'm a little intrigued by this. finds 90 articles where nom and shortlisted are used in the same tables. The two have always used very different colors, so are they the same? If so, wouldn't it make sense for them to have the same colour? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I myself represent the general reader and came here because I reading a filmography sectioned and was confused as to why the colour had changed since the last time. Light Red for nominated, Green for won. Simple JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The change has been contested so I have rolled it back. For the record, I was asleep during most of this conversation. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Stemming from this discussion, I would like to offer my full support in having "nom" move away from red. Red normally carries negative connotations. Being nominated for something is typically an honor. Look at this list, the disqualified and withdrawn submissions are nearly the same as those nominated for an Oscar! And shortlisted are nearly the same color as the Oscar winner. This is highly misleading, in my opinion. See the previous edit for what it looked like with different templates used (such as "good" for a nomination). So, I would ask that the "nom" template be changed to a green color, and "notnom" changed to a red color. Shortlisted should be a different color from gold or yellow, so blue is a good option, I believe. Jmj713 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Like this?
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Template call ! Current shade ! Proposed shade
 * Not won
 * Not won
 * notnom
 * style="background-color:#EEE;text-align:center;" | Not nominated
 * style="background-color:#FFE3E3;text-align:center;" | Not nominated
 * Silver
 * Silver
 * Bronze
 * Bronze
 * Gold
 * Gold
 * won
 * Won
 * Won
 * nom
 * style="background-color:#FFE3E3;text-align:center;" | Nominated
 * style="background-color:#BFD;text-align:center;" | Nominated
 * runner-up
 * sho
 * style="background-color:#FE9;text-align:center;" | Shortlisted
 * style="background-color:#CEF;text-align:center;" | Shortlisted
 * longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * }
 * nom
 * style="background-color:#FFE3E3;text-align:center;" | Nominated
 * style="background-color:#BFD;text-align:center;" | Nominated
 * runner-up
 * sho
 * style="background-color:#FE9;text-align:center;" | Shortlisted
 * style="background-color:#CEF;text-align:center;" | Shortlisted
 * longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * }
 * longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * Longlisted
 * }
 * }


 * --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, these shades are pretty much perfect. Jmj713 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oscars is a whole other ballpark. Being submitted in some categories is an achievement on its own. Being eligible is something of an achievement - not all films manage it because of red tape - but isn't the same level of achievement as being eligible for categories at certain film festivals, which are effectively shortlists/noms depending on which festival it is. Some Oscar categories have long-, short- lists, some don't, some have one or the other. Then consider other film awarding bodies, because the collection of film color templates for award tables will have to be standardized across all awarding bodies. It's... complicated. Hence, it would be a significant overhaul of a system that works pretty well, and should have its own RfC, not spring out of four people complaining. Can we not do this here, basically? Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it would be a significant overhaul of a system I believe you are proposing an overhaul, but it is not what is being proposed or discussed, which is a much simpler change. Keep in mind that these templates are, by definition, for comparison tables, they are not an absolute measure of achievement, but rather an indication of relative achievement between similar works or artists (or sometimes sportspersons in the case of won).
 * the collection of film color templates for award tables will have to be standardized across all awarding bodies Standardization is good. From what I've seen so far, it seems very well standardized in various contexts.
 * and should have its own RfC I believe it shouldn't. Extensive discussion of such changes, too, is to be discouraged—ideally, to be avoided completely—though a little explanation and statement of opinion never hurt anyone, and may be a good idea. (WP:COLORWAR). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's saying we can't change the templates. The main concern has been that these are fairly extensive, wide-ranging changes, so they deserve thorough discussion, especially because – as you acknowledge – this affects a range of templates that would have to subsequently be re-standardized. Regarding WP:COLORWAR, that is (a) an essay, not a guiding policy, and (b) refers more to the types of templates used for talk page messages and the like, which aren't very public and have little meaning. These templates, on the other hand, use color deliberately as a way to clearly show differences; hence, changes are more consequential. Please consider a more thorough discussion venue than this talk page before making changes, including an RfC if needed – that's all that's being asked. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022 (2)
Revert all color changes to templates requested in the last month by, as they are actively misleading, per my comments here. Not a perfect solution, but much better until there can be an actual discussion. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Absolutely agree! I think most of us have no idea why it was changed in the first place. JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as explained in. Alternative solutions for both issues were proposed in. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You guys know this isn't a !vote thing, right?? And, Fernando, as said, there should be a full discussion before more changes, and a stable revert is the immediate solution until there is a consensus on colors. While you are of course free to propose making more changes that aren't agreed upon based on what you think will fix things, it doesn't seem like a reasonable course of action - more unilateral changes are only likely to mean even more discussion is needed, and why would you so fiercely want to have such changes implemented on a template that is used on hundreds of thousands of articles without giving people a chance to discuss? You are not omniscient to colors in templates, and "I proposed a solution" isn't a good response to people bringing up concerns. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the proposed change is more reasonable than a revert, that's why I proposed it (why else would I?). Please consider it wholeheartedly. I am not omniscient but I'm sure that, if you read carefully all that I have written in, you'll see that I have checked the use of nom in many articles, but it looks like a combination with pending is not that common, that's why I missed it (or perhaps I was very unlucky in my verification). So in I proposed new shades that are actually distinguishable. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of being unlucky, nom has 33169 transclusions, and pending has 1934 transclusions . In a worst-case scenario where all pages that transclude nom also transclude pending, this means that at most 5.83% (1 in every 17) of the pages that use nom would collide with pending. Of course pending is used in many other contexts, so the real number must be lower. I'll investigate. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Following H:HASTEMP, finds 1198 articles using both templates, so 3.61% (1 in every 28) of the pages using nom also use pending. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what Kingsif said, we need to discuss this before it becomes a permanent change. While you may find it reasonable and non-controversial, the fact that multiple other users have come here to comment on the change clearly indicates that it is controversial. Your explanation, while thoughtful, isn't relevant for this; when a controversial change is made, the expectation is that the original version is restored and the matter is discussed more fully, at which point your explanation would be considered. Pinging to see if they are willing to restore the original version. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, with JosHeartTransplant identified as a sockpuppet account, I see that we have two in favour of a refinement (Ajack15 and me) and two apparently against it (Kingsif and you). Though I'm left with the impression that you two are more concerned with adherence to protocol, which of course is important. But why not try the proposed refinement first and then argue for a revert if it is still bad? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ajack15 was asking for an explanation and hasn't seemed to support one way or the other, while Felida97 has also noted that discussion is likely needed before such a change. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What Ajack15 said: I agree. Or maybe, if you're not opposed to it, an entirely new shade all together. Just something to make the difference discernible. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So with Felida97 we have one requesting more discussion, two for and two against the change. Does Primefac count? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how we should consider Primefac's input. I've notified WikiProjects Templates and Awards to see if more users will join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I am very much against the change that was made as well as your proposed "refinement". But I take even more issue with your approach to this whole thing. The reason why I didn't state my position as clearly in my first comment is that, like Kingsif said, this isn't the place for such a discussion (nor are the template edit requests btw). There needs to be a proper discussion, where all potential side effects and consistency issues of the change can be discussed in detail by multiple people before this kind of controversial change. As RunningTiger123 pointed, the change would long have been reverted were it not for the template protection, thus forcing you to open an actual discussion. So instead of making new WP:TPERs or arguing and trying to tally up votes here, I would suggest that you put your time and energy into crafting a change proposal (possibly with multiple colour suggestions/options to support). You've made some valid points on this topic, but they should not be scattered here. Felida97 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it's worth noting that the changes here have failed to consider other templates; for instance, the colors no longer match with Template:Infobox awards list. And if you're suggesting we have time to wait for how the new colors work, why is it that we don't have time to wait and carry out a discussion to find consensus? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that. I meant: try the proposed change, if you dislike it, revert to the old color. One click to try the refinement, one click to revert. Discussion can happen freely at any of those steps, including after a possible full revert. On the other hand, if the proposed change works out well (which I think it will at least a little bit), then time is saved and damage (to the readers) is mitigated. It is not impossible that a second refinement will be proposed, but then in the meantime readers will have at least some distinction between Nominated and Pending. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That starts from a presumption that the edit is an improvement, which doesn't seem to be the consensus. As is noted at Reverting: During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. Given that the template had used the old color for years without issues, it's reasonable to call it the status quo, and it seemed to work well during that time, so we should respect that by keeping it that way unless there is clear consensus to change. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is preceded by: If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. And followed by: It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, and normally, the edit would have been reverted and this discussion would be conducted with the old version in place; that hasn't happened here solely due to the page protection. As to the apparent claim that this is "status quo stonewalling", note that good reasons for leaving the status quo have been noted, not just the fact that it was the status quo. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But Kingsif's first comment is about the current colour, #FFD, not about the refinement, #FFB, proposed after we found out that #FFD collided with pending. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes sense for the color change to be coordinated with Infobox awards list, which has 890 transclusions. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The first version of Infobox awards list set Nominations to the same light yellow colour now used for nom. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But the nominations column is red, so my guess is that the yellow was not deliberate. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We don’t need it to be changed, the original colour was fine.JosHeartTransplant (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The discussion above is in full swing and I have already undone the most recent change as a contested move. Please discuss the matter there to avoid splitting the conversation. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2022
Please replace all code in Won with sandbox code

Change: added value  which can be used in articles such as List of Japanese Academy Award winners and nominees and List of French submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film to represent the Honorary Award result. Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 03:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the colour of template for Nominated
Should the colour of unified cell template nom (representing Nominated) be light red, light green, or light yellow? Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In it was also suggested that:
 * The colour of Nominations in Infobox awards list should match the colour of nom, that is, either they don't change or they change together; and
 * The colours of notnom and sho might also need tweaking (see table below)

More than 33,000 articles use nom in tables listing or comparing awards. In most of them, for example,, the template is used as intended. The discussion started because a group of about 200 articles related to Oscar nominations, for example, List of submissions to the 93rd Academy Awards for Best International Feature Film, were using nom for Not Nominated, which is the opposite of its intent. After switching to nom and the newly created notnom in the articles of this group, the colour symbolism in their comparison tables seems counter-intuitive, as Nominated is considered a good result, while the symbolism of red is usually more negative. A change of nom to very light yellow turned out to be controversial due to a collision with the colour of pending in about 1200 articles. As a quick fix, it was proposed changing nom to a darker but still light yellow, because unified cell templates representing partial success are usually of this hue. Later, it was proposed changing it to a light green/aquamarine, to reflect the positive character of being nominated compared to other possible results in contests. The following table may help visualize the impact on tables listing or comparing awards:

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: summoned by bot. This isn't an area I spend much time editing, but I'd like to point out that in Chinese culture, red is considered lucky. My personal preference would be to make not nominated plain white, symboliing nothing - the absense of color. Not won could be grey, symbolizing a gloomy occurrence more than red.  Probably not much worry about confusing it with the silver color used for second place. No opinion on nominated, besides that red can be considered lucky. Either of the three colors (the current red and the two proposed) would seem to work. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the change as per my comments above, earlier. For most in the English-speaking world, red usually denotes something negative. Being nominated for something is typically an honor. Thus, red is counter-intuitive for the vast majority of readers. It should be a shade of green. This is because then in most cases a nomination could result in a win, which has the correct template and corresponding colors. With Oscars, and I'm sure many other instances, there are also general submission lists, from which a longlist and/or a shortlist is derived. These are also a type of honor, in most cases. However, currently to be shortlisted appears too close to winning (yellow/gold), yet being shortlisted is pretty far down the chain, as you're not even guaranteed a nomination. Finally, those entries which do not end up receiving a nomination, this is ultimately the only "failure" worthy of the color red, in my opinion. Thus, I fully support changing "nom" to a shade of green, "notnom" to a shade of red, and "sho" to a shade of blue, as outlined above. Jmj713 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that some logical gradient - colors "improving" up to green for winning - should be used when there isn't a standard 1-2-3 placement system for the results. This particularly applies to film. As a note, I think the figure of ~1200 articles using nom and pending templates isn't a very practical figure. We are currently not in a major sports/film awards season. Once we are, there will be many more "pending" awards that get turned into nom/won a few days or weeks later. But those few weeks are also when most of the attention is on those awards and people will be reading the articles in search of that specific information the most. The number of articles with both (and more) templates will go up, as will the readership. Question 1: where "submitted" and "eligible" are valid entries (Oscar for Best International Film, major film festivals), which of the "also ran" templates would we assign? Being "eligible" is currently treated as a nomination, while submission-without-longlisting is just "not nominated". Do we stick with those? Question 2: "Shortlisted" (and "longlisted") usually occur before the final list of nominees, but sometimes shortlisting comes after a "here are the full nominees" kind of announcement. As this would create confusion on the quality of the result, should we treat post-nomination shortlists as a kind of runner-up - or should we treat pre-shortlist nominations as a longlist? Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current proposal without consideration of other uses of won/nom green/red color scheme, per RunningTiger below. Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose first option (teal) for "nominated", oppose other options. I think there is room for improvement in the colors used, particularly for "nominated", but there are several key issues that I've noticed. First, while many tables would be instantly updated to use new colors, there are other templates that would have to be updated. For instance, Template:Infobox awards list uses the green/red scheme for won/nominated, but when the original change to the "nominated" color was proposed, this was not changed accordingly. The lack of care for how this might affect other templates makes me worry that if this one change is implemented, the remaining templates will be left high and dry with now-incorrect formatting. Second, the colors proposed here, and in particular the first option for "nominated", create new color problems. Many tables use only "won" and "nominated", so having a fairly large degree of contrast between those two options is important to me. If the first option were to be chosen, the two results would both use shades of green and become much more difficult for the typical reader to distinguish, rendering the entire coloring of those tables pretty much pointless. Even if the colors are changed, I strongly discourage any change to the first option. The second option is better, but still presents issues with "nominated" and "pending" both being shades of yellow; however, I don't think it's as big of a deal, since the two have fairly similar meanings and "pending" is a temporary label.
 * The first two issues are troublesome, but I think they could be addressed, so my initial !vote was going to be "neutral". However, as I wrote this, I identified a third issue that is much more significant than I originally thought, which has led me to !oppose the change. The issue is that because the colors (particularly for won/nominated) have the inertia of years of use, there are many tables that use those colors or similar hues without using the templates. (Refer to this page for an example of a full table without the templates, and these four featured lists for examples of infoboxes that don't use the templates.) By updating the template colors, those tables will not match what is seen everywhere else on Wikipedia, meaning that potentially thousands of tables would have to be updated manually with no quick way to find those tables, while readers are left confused by the discrepancies in the interim – especially on pages that mix template and non-template colors. Due to the amount of work that would be required to update those tables for what is ultimately a fairly small aesthetic issue, I must discourage the color changes and encourage us to follow stare decisis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I have tried to think of solutions to this now, like creating a new set of templates and putting a label on the current that they're outdated in hopes other users would mass change any other color instances... but I can't see it working. Would be willing to look through all uses of infobox awards, and all articles that could be reasonably expected to have an awards table, to identify non-template uses of color? I ultimately think that, to keep internal consistency, awards should be migrated to a special awards table template (or set of templates), which would (among other practicalities) set color automatically. But that would be an even bigger manual change. Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is also a featured list: List of submissions to the 80th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I'm not involved with many other articles using these templates, but I have been involved in these Oscar lists for many years. And we originally used "good" for Nominated, because it didn't make sense to use a template that colored it red, since that was a positive achievement. Looking at this list now, both a nomination and a disqualification appear pretty much the same. This can't stay like this. And being shortlisted appearing so close to a win is a similar problem. Compare it to the previous version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_submissions_to_the_80th_Academy_Awards_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film&oldid=1032881859 Jmj713 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I know the existing situation is far from ideal, as I noted at the start of my original response, and I mulled over !neutral vs. !oppose for probably close to an hour. But the more I thought about it as I was writing my response, the more I found myself concerned by the risk of creating a split in styles. I would prefer internal consistency over a small improvement in aesthetics, but that's just my personal opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These cases wouldn't be a problem if these articles were actually using the standard templates (Infobox awards list and the unified cell templates nom, won and sho). It would be best to try to quantify the problem (for example, elaborating a search query using a combination of expected categories, patterns in article titles, and words in the articles) to see how many instances of the problem exist, and if it's not many then maybe it's not really a good reason to block changes to the standard templates. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried searches for insource:"background: #ddffdd" "Award" and insource:"bgcolor=#ffdddd" "Award" to find examples of pages that might use it, and those turned up about 430 and 230 hits, respectively. Even if only about half or so are legitimate awards tables, that's still a lot of work to fix, and those are only two possible ways to create those colors – there are other forms of syntax that can create the same result, and there might be other, slightly different shades of red/green that this is missing. It's certainly not a negligible issue – given that there are about 33,000 transclusions of Template:Nom, we could reasonably be looking at anywhere from 1% to 10% of pages with won/nominated awards lists becoming out of sync, depending on how you want to make your estimates. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is also possible that pending isn't using the best colour. Not a result, but a status representing no result yet, similar to unknown, n/a and not yet, which are light grey. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be better than the yellow and at least addresses my second concern from above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm an outside editor here. I cannot figure out how to actually phrase my !vote (this RfC is going to be uncloseable because of this) but one issue I can see is that Oscar nominations are not equivalent to nominations for other awards. In the Oscars, the nominees are chosen from the shortlist. For the Nobel Prize in Literature on the other hand, the shortlist is chosen from the nominees. The second is what I would say is a more common practice in many other fields. If we ingrain this colour spectrum we'd be effectively privileging the Oscars' in this template. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then maybe a better solution is to create oscarnom and oscarshortlist. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already asked this question, and while I can off the top of my head think of more awarding bodies that shortlist first, the reverse isn't insignificant. Of course, this means that any Oscar-based or Nobel-based templates aren't a viable solution. That's why I suggested using a gradient scale that basically charts how far through the process from eligibility to winning something got - the color would differ based on that rather than the text presented. Kingsif (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a better proposal. I do not know enough about template syntax to know whether or not this is feasible though. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can code it as long as the logic is clear. It would be important to decide first what the interface of such a template would be. What are the parameters? What values would they assume? Would the gradient be from light red to light green or light blue? Current templates are semantic (although the semantics may need some improvement). Depending on the parameters you're thinking about, the new template might end up losing semantics, is this ok? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would probably be something as simple as deciding the different stages of the process, giving each a numerical value (e.g. 10 for only being eligible, 1 for winning), assigning the numerical value a color on the gradient, and then also allowing for custom text to describe the result. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So has there been any further discussion anywhere? Jmj713 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any. I understand that Kingsif proposed a general solution, but it still needs to be specialized for each type of award (one has to first list the stages to assign the colors of a default gradient), and we currently only have two types of awards, so it seems to me that creating oscarnom and oscarshortlist would be the easiest path for now. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So if no one objects to this solution, I'll go for it. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you proposing a new template that uses the colors outlined here and keeping the existing colors for this template? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm proposing creating oscarnom and oscarshortlist, initially with the colours used previously in the articles related to Oscar nominations (light green for Nominated, light red for Not nominated), and adopting these new templates in these articles. That way, colours of these two new templates can be adjusted without affecting articles that use nom. Adjustment (converging to the same colour scheme, or diverging to a different scheme) can then go in the direction that makes the most sense as future discussions progress on this topic. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)