Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)

Replacing the user created track map with NHC track map

Per WP:ACCDD, scroll lists and collapsible sections should not be used. In File:Orlene 2022 track.png (currently used in the article), the legend for the map is in a collapsible section on the article called "Map key" (perm link to see). On the official National Hurricane Center track and intensity map, File:Hurricane Orlene’s official NHC track map.jpg, the legend is in the image itself. Per accessibility reasons, the map should be replaced. The official track/intensity map also includes a scale bar, which the user created map does not (in the image or collapsible key). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting as there is no consensus. The current Wikipedia map works completely fine, and matches every single other track map on the site. Also, this decision has been made without any consensus from anyone else. There is absolutely no reason or precedent to change it. SolarisPenguin (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comment of “absolutely no reason…to change it” is not accurate as I did provide a reason to change it. Your precedent comment is also irrelevant as consensus can change. I’m tempted to take this to an RfC since there is serious accessibility concerns with the user provided/created maps vs the NOAA official maps. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC - User created map or NHC Map

The following discussion 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.

---

Which track and intensity map is the best option for the article?

Option 1: File:Orlene 2022 track.png (Currently used)
Option 2: File:Hurricane Orlene’s official NHC track map.jpg (By the National Hurricane Center)

Elijahandskip (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Option 2 — The first option, File:Orlene 2022 track.png is more visually appealing to readers and it is consistent with other tropical cyclone articles. That said, when a reader downloads the image for the track, there is 0 scale bar or legend. Basically, the downloaded image is just a satellite view with shapes of different colors. Unless you view the legend on Wikipedia (either in the Commons summary or if in the article itself, the collapsible “Map key”, there is no indication of what the colors or shapes mean. Option 2, File:Hurricane Orlene’s official NHC track map.jpg, while brighter and non-satellite, it does provide a scale bar and map legend on the image itself. This allows a reader who downloads or shares the image to share what the map is talking about, rather than just colored shapes. So due to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility & WP:ACCDD (collapsible map key) concerns, I believe Option 2 is the best choice for the image. My choice for Option 2 would be changed to option 1 if a user was able to add the legend to the image itself, rather than have it in the commons summary/collapsible map key. In a unrelated discussion about fixing color tables for accessibility, Hurricane Noah said, “We are unable to fix every accessibility problem out there, however, we must ensure that the most glaring issues are resolved.” If this RfC does decide on Option 1, I believe the issues I brought up about no scale bar or legend on the image need to be addressed ASAP. (Note: I did a no-ping template). Elijahandskip (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The current solution lines up with all other track maps, and the lack of a scale bar is really a non-issue. I have also never seen a person have issues with the map legend being a collapsed menu. Additionally, if we use this solution, what will it look like when we go to non-NHC basins, where there are no maps of this style? Finally, option 1 also provides us with the actual categories on the map, instead of just TD/TS/HU/MH. Ultimately, I strongly believe that option 1 is better because it is more universal and more specific, with the lack of a scale bar or map legend being minor issues. SolarisPenguin (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• ...if only there was an RfC about this earlier... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:16, 13 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.