Talk:California Chrome

Archives
Archive 1

Pre PA Derby workout photos

Usable Flickr photos here if needed. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Like and **bows** to your amazing image-finding abilities! And congrats on passing your test stuff! Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And congrats on MMM's recent showing on FA. Fine job all around. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Source parking

• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/88191/sherman-sees-california-chrome-bouncing-back

Articles for updates

For week of Feb 1:

• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/89920/california-chrome-picks-up-cal-bred-awards
• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/89919/california-chrome-works-set-for-san-antonio

The length of this article is ridiculous

California Chrome won the Triple Crown, right? No? So why is this article so ridiculously long? Secretariat (who by the way DID win the Triple Crown, and holds the speed records in all three events) has an entry nowhere near this long. But then, Tim Tebow has an entry probably six times as long as that of Johnny Unitas. That's how Wikipedia works. The inferior horse (or quarterback) gets the longer write-up for no other reason than someone having a lot of time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd31263 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To each his/her own. There is nothing stopping you from improving those articles instead of complaining. But complaining is of course easier. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought about that. From now on I will start assessing all articles by tape measure; it's the perfect metric to determine quality and comprehensiveness! We don't need to think about what should or should not be included or what the existing state of knowledge is – one size fits all. Hmm, since the C class article at Secretariat is non-ridiculous at about half the length, we can make this featured article of equal quality by just removing every other word.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, one of these days we really DO need to bring Secretariat up to FAC quality... just that it's so dang daunting with all the vandals and crazies that hit it... Had we started it in 1973... Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Source parking for some updates

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/sports/california-chromes-overseas-trip-hits-a-detour.html?_r=0
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/sports/royal-ascot-a-challenge-too-great-for-california-chrome.html?smid=fb-share
• http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/horses/2015/06/18/california-chrome-pre-entered-in-sandown-parks-coral-eclipse/28922097/
• http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/horses/triple/derby/2015/06/04/nasal-strip-again-a-no-go-for-california-chrome-at-royal-ascot/28464857/
• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/91994/chrome-pre-entered-in-coral-eclipse-stakes

• http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/06/03/layden-chrome-oral-history
• http://www.nkytribune.com/2015/08/celebrity-horse-california-chrome-enjoying-rr-in-the-bluegrass-and-will-likely-find-his-kentucky-home/

Colored quote boxes

The article was raised to WP:FA with colored quote boxes. Before removing the color, it would be necessary to have a consensus here to do that. I am opening this discussion to ascertain consensus. I for one, have always liked the color in the quote boxes on this article -- it adds to the visual interest and helps break up the monotony of text. Those things (visual interest) are always important for FAs. I for one am in favor of keeping the color. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My view is, yes, color in general is good for visual interest and to draw the eye (especially aging ones like mine) I feel pretty strongly that some color should be used. If people don't like these particular colors, we can discuss that; I have wondered if the shades should be lightened a bit. The purple and green was a deliberate choice, the DAP racing colors, it was raised at some point and the FAC passed with them. I suppose one could go all light green or all light lavender, I think I just used a light blue on American Pharoah, but I think the purple and green is kind of amusing and would prefer to keep it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I like them just as they are ... differentiated (all three different), with some well-defined color. (The use here actually inspired me to use color on some other articles I was working on at the time of this FA.) Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"I feel pretty strongly that some color should be used." But you don't analyze why you feel that. Perhaps to set it off from the text? OK, the actual *box* (black rectangular outline) sets the text off, as well as the quotebox template light gray-supplied background color. That's what the outline and light gray is for. And it is sufficient. Plastering cutzie colors into the background spaces kills the great real purple & green colors in the photos & image, by drowning them out. The template is smart. Light gray is not distracting. It's professional, and encyclopedic, and sets things off as much as they need, and not excessively, creating distraction and glittery glut. [I repeat: Less is more.]) IHTS (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. ("Cutifying" the article with kitsch decorative colors.) Yes, FA articles s/b "enjoyable to read", but this is more appropriate for Picture Magazine (maybe out-of-print, I dunno), not an encyclopedic article. (Could you see Britannica doing same?) We get that the horse's & uniform colors are purple & green. Less is more. (If you like to see those colors, they will pop out even more, if you just let them, where they count - in the photos and depictions of uniform. By throwing in these spaces of solid colors, you actually overrun the real colors in the images like a Mac Truck.) It's a Featured article, not a page from a coloring book. The fact that FAC let it go by, has no bearing - FAC is not omniscient or God. Stop reverting me. Adding cutzie colors would be the bold change, since they are superfluous, unprofessional, distracting, gaudy. An encyclopedic article is not a dollhouse to play with according to our color fancy. Now let me hear your cogent reason to add back cutzie colors to the backgrounds. (I'd first recommend you look at the article without them, and compare, to maybe see what I've been saying.) The onus is on you to explain why you'd add distracting cutzie kitsch like this to an encyclopedic article. (WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason. "It draws attention" is why it is a poor idea, not a good one.) IHTS (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and input and for engaging in discussion. There's still however no WP:CONSENSUS not to have the color which existed on the FA until your current edit-war, so I encourage you to self-revert your latest removal of the colored quote boxes. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your argument comes down to WP:ILIKEIT. Consensus isn't made by body count, rather quality of argument. IHTS (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

IHTS, I am open to discussion of changing the colors, but the plain white you have is actually hard to read in terms of setting off the quote box from the rest of the article. If you don't like purple and green, we can discuss that, but I think your position of no color at all is not justifiable on the basis of readability; the gray line alone does not adequately set off the quotation from the text. And, per WP:BRD, the WP:BURDEN is actually on you to justify the change. If you have citations to policy or guidelines, I'd suggest you post them here. So I concur that you need to restore the status quo so it can be discussed. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought at first the rectangular box outline was black, but I see now it is dark gray. (That's even better than black - less harsh.) The box background default color on my computer is a light gray, darker than the text page off-white. So it is not "plain white" (unless your computer color settings are somehow radically different). The default quote box, according to your position, is "unjustifiably diffucult to read"?? (Man, I think the quote box programmers were excellent designers too. Readability is fine on my computer, and their design minimizes unnecessary distraction. They did a good job. [I'm very critical, and I couldn't improve on what they've done.]) I don't agree with your other stuff - it is too policy wonk, and I notice your supporters have tag-teamed without any argument, in reverting, and also hollow arguments in discussion. 3RR does not override bad taste and poor judgement. Your colorizations overrun the article with distracting unnecessary glitz. The true colors of purple & green in photos and images are drowned out. Think "encyclopedia", not Picture Magazine. (Now, I'm repeating myself.) IHTS (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have alerted WikiProject Horse racing of this discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Coloured quote boxes create accessibility problems. Those problems are accentuated by smaller screens (e.g., mobile devices or smaller tablets). The colours chosen are particularly inappropriate; they are dark and overwhelm the text even on a full-sized screen. The light grey colour that is normally used for quote boxes is selected so that it does not create these usability and accessibility problems. This isn't even a matter of preference or "cutifying" or attractiveness. Usability and accessibility are core concepts, and I am actually quite shocked that the colours were not removed during the FA process. Perhaps FA no longer considers accessibility as a key component. Risker (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No one ever raised it as a concern with me. I think someone asked me why green and purple, that was it. If there is a light gray that works, I'm Ok using it, but I've seen gray be even more inaccessible than a light green or light yellow. Frankly, the white-on-white for my 50-year old eyes is inaccessible to me, it means the quote box is just indistinguishable from the text, the line doesn't help ... so just point me to the color chart for the accessibility colors allowed and I can pick one. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, I see light gray in the box background, different from the body text off-white background. Also, WikiProject Horse racing is not the pertinent audience for this consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't. On my laptop screen it's white on white - the border is dark gray - you have no color parameter in there at all... maybe you have a different browser or a different monitor than I do. But in either case, it would be useful here to cite the accessibility standard to which Risker is referring; I know there's a list of "good" and "bad" colors somewhere around here, but I can't find it. Also, the people who work on these types of articles are appropriate ones to ping. You can ping other projects if you wish. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I can understand then, an inclination to add color. (My browser is Firefox.) But not brilliant neon color. Whatever color s/b only a shade darker than the text off-white background. p.s. I'm done here, I've made all comments necessary. Do what you want w/ the article, but please don't uglify it by reverting back to neon-colored backgrounds. (Light gray is best.) IHTS (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong or misremembering, but many if not most FAs that I've seen recently have colored quote boxes. Pinging Eric Corbett, who probably has the most experience reviewing FAs, for possible substantiation one way or another or neither .... Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have looked at this article in Monobook on Safari and in default settings with Firefox and with (Google) Chrome, and the box is white on both of them. No gray except the border ... IHTS, maybe share with us what you are using, because I don't see gray at all. (I have a MacBook Pro, if that matters) Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Try logging out and then viewing it. I suspect you have some sort of script running that is altering the standard formatting of the quote template. Risker (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On a PC, on Chrome and on Monobook version of WP, I see the boxes in IDHT's version as the palest of grey -- the palest on any greyscale chart. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)