Forum:CT:change colors on Timeline of Books

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was adopt the proposed layout. 1358 ^(Talk) 16:50, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies. This is my first time doing this. Thanks to Cal Jedi for the correction.
  

Here's take two:
This vote concerns the color coding on the Timeline of books page.
Some of the colors can be confusing. On the Timeline of media, blue is for novels, and red is for not yet published. On the Timeline of Books, red is for kids novels, blue is for not yet published and green is for adult novels.

Proposal

It would seem more intuitively consistent to make blue adult novels, green kids novels and red not yet printed. Blue would be the adult novels because on the Timeline of media, blue is the color used for novels and light blue is used for short stories. Since adult novels are usually longer than kids novels, it makes sense for them to be blue. Consistency also adds to the professionalism of the site.
This key should be used:

Current scheme

Voting

Support

1. Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 02:23, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
2. Purely because consistency is good. I would prefer to see the color-coding axed altogether because of the color-blind accessibility issues, but that's not what this vote is about, and taken by itself, this is an improvement simply because it makes things more consistent. —MJ— _{War Room} Monday, June 4, 2012, 23:55 UTC
3. I think it looks better. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 01:19, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
4. I appear to have missed the point, based on another discussion on these articles' Talk pages. +1 for consistency. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 02:05, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
5. Eh. This isn't CT worthy... you would have been better off making the change yourself. No one would have minded that, if you're trying for consistency. Cade Calrayn 02:06, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
   • That's what I figured too, but somebody reverted it and told me I should talk to an admin.—Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 11:44, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
   • I suggested to ESL to make a CT. Personally, I didn't care if they were changed, but I felt that there would be those who would care if they were changed without prior knowledge. This was just to cover the bases. I'm for the change, as I think it looks better, but I'm not yet going to vote until some other admins weigh in. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 02:23, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
6. Seems harmless. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 02:29, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
7. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:58, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
8. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but it makes some amount of sense to use red for not-yet-published stuff, so why not? Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 18:17, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
9. ESL is king of color coordination. To be king of your kitchen, use Crestfield wax paper. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 21:47, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
10. —Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 01:58, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
11. DangerDan passes to halfback. Halfback passes to center. Back to DangerDan. DangerDan holds it... holds it... HOLDS IT!!!! Menkooroo 04:55, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
12. The new scheme follows a gradient pattern, from dark to light, then dark again. It is more pleasing to the eye, as the colors compliment each other much better, from cool to warm. And for the record, years ago, I was diagnosed with red-green and contrast color blindness. :P Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 09:19, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
13. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:46, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
14. I would prefer that we used the same color scheme as terror alerts from the Department of Homeland Security, but you can't win them all. ~Savage 20:11, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
15. Cumulonimbus Cloud ^{(Meeting Room)} 01:43, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
16. 1358 ^(Talk) 15:11, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

No. What's next, separate articles written in Ebonics so the 5 people from 'the streets' can be accommodated too? What a completely ludicrous idea. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 20:30, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not referring to the colorblind usability section. That was just an idea I wanted to throw out there to see what people thought. If that's what you're talking about, you should post your comment there on the talk page. This is not the place to discuss that.—Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 23:07, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

I kind of have to agree with Digi. Cade Calrayn 20:38, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Since six have replied in favor with none opposed, I am going to make the change. If there is opposition after that, I will gladly revert the changes. This will also give you the opportunity to see exactly what the changes will do to the page.
  —Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 20:11, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • No. The point of a CT is so that the community can decide. Consensus Tracks last at least two weeks, and you cannot decide to make the change before the CT is closed. Cade Calrayn 20:15, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • Did not know that. My bad.
      —Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 20:54, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
• EwokSithLord: Just so you know, this is not set up as a CT should be. You're presenting this as if for discussion. If this is what you intended, then it should be moved to the Senate Hall, where it can be discussed and worked out. If you want people to just vote yes or no, then you need to add some voting options as can be seen in these previous CT's.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 01:48, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? I thought I did. I'm so confused. —Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 02:32, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
    • You did. Users' comments should be left for public record, so I simply placed my original comment here.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 02:35, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh. Okay. thanks. so many little things—Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 20:17, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.