Template talk:Current disaster

For winter storms
Note: I've also included this template for coverage of the winter storm that will hit most of the Central and northern Plains, kinda like the Storm Watch template, so I'm basically continuing the same way like it is done with severe weather outbreaks.-- JForget 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Really?
Is this template really necessary? Can't we use Current event instead? Why the (I think excessive) feeling to subdivide current events? &mdash;OverMyHead 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This one is more important because it reminds readers that trusted sources should be used in an emergency instead of Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Change of icon
I've noticed the icon for this template has changed. But, due to its circumstances, this template "requires" a current event icon with a triangle warning on it. The red one is a bit too harsh though after 2nd thoughts, so maybe a yellow one would do good. ViperSnake151 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Would it be possible to edit this icon to substitute, say, a red emergency light for the red triangle to the lower right of the globe? --Resplendent (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Icon and color
I'm just not understanding why this template needs to be "consistent" with other current event templates. A disaster isn't like the death of a celebrity or something; people who are affected by the disaster will be reading an article in haste and won't even see this template unless it has a different look than all the dozens of other maintenance templates that we use. A little jog to remind people not to base life-safety decisions on our data is necessary and is the right thing to do. I think having the template in a red shade and with an exclamation point marker makes the template not only stand out from the normal clutter of maintenance templates, but it also emphasizes that we are perfectly serious when we say that our data may not be up do date or accurate. I say we change it back or at least to something similar. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not guessing why a bold color scheme is bad. It's not like these will be used that often or long. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I made it like this to make it look as less like a disclaimer as possible per the backlash on that HurricaneWarning template and WP:NDA. There is a reason why I made a current event icon with a exclamation mark on it. Please notice that it is a bit more subtle that Wikipedia info may not be accurate and that local authorities should be depended on further. ViperSnake151 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the speedy et al. I just really would prefer it to be more visible and pop off the page. It's only going to be in use in very limited cases, and then for exceptionally short runs. I saw with the yes flag you just got it, yes? rootology ( C )( T ) 16:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rootology, this template needs to be more visible however we do it. People who are anxious about being affected by a disaster will likely not even see this notice due to it's looking very similar to our clutter of maintenance templates. I appreciate your effort, but the tiny exclamation point on the globe is insufficient to attract attention in my opinion. If we don't make it more visible, editors are going to make an effort to replace that big disclaimer banner they had on the Hurricane Gustav article. Can't we make this template red, or even pink at the very least? &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, looking at the article now I see you used a bit of template magic to make it work that way already. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the background color suggestion. --Resplendent (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the red colour. I have left a message in the relevant thread at the Administrators' noticeboard; please comment there. Waltham, The Duke of 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The template should not be red, since that means the page is about to be deleted. What you can do and still be within the guideline for the use of article message boxes is to change the icons. Here are some examples:

Example 1:

Example 2:

Example 3:

Example 4:

Since this message is a warning about the content of the article, it could perhaps have "content" colour, that is orange major warning colour:

Example 5:

Example 6:

But since the message box doesn't really say there is anything wrong with the article, just that it might be wrong (really it's just a disclaimer) then we should perhaps use the "style" colour, that is yellow minor warning colour:

Example 7:

Example 8:

Example 9:

So, that was plenty of options for you guys to ponder. Personally I think I prefer examples 4, 6 and 8. Example 3 is pretty nice too. I think 8 is my favourite and is at the right urgency level. But 9 is nice too. Tough choice! :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer a color=(yellow, orange, red) option, with blue as a default color. Yellow is usable for potential middle-term threats (i.e. when a Hurricane Watch is in effect; when a tornado outbreak is developing), orange is usable for less-serious threats (i.e. weaker earthquakes, tropical storms) and red for the the most serious threats (imminent or occuring major disaster). CrazyC83 (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
The template says that an article, "... may not reflect the most current or official information..." May not, in English, is ambiguous: it can either indicate prohibition ("You may not go!") or possible negation ("I may go but, then again, I may not.") In spoken English, the meaning is usually clear from the stress -- "not" is stressed for prohibition and "may" for possible negation.

In written English, it is clearer to use "must not" for prohibition and "might not" for possible negation. Dricherby (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Might not seems fine to me. --Resplendent (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Add "section" parameter?
Would it be possible to add support for the  parameter, to match the current template?--NapoliRoma (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason not to. 117Avenue (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the source I see that there's already an undocumented  parameter which can serve that purpose. I'm reluctant to change the template to create support for a position-dependent section parameter, since that looks like it could cause other use cases to break. For now, I'll just update the documentation, although it'd be better if "current" and "current disaster" used the same syntax.

On a similar note, I see this automatically adds articles to the category Current events from mmm yyyy -- but unlike current, it doesn't add to just plain Category:Current events. It seems to me both would be appropriate, making it handy for both readers and editors to see what's currently "current" as well as what might be old news and should be de-tagged.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What qualifies as 'current'
There has been a discussion that has arisen over what deems an article to warrant having these templates used. Specifically it has come up on articles about wildfires that use Current wildfire (a sub-template). The question is:

'''To qualify for the template, does the page need to have a certain number of edits in recent days, or does the fact that it is a currently unfolding event mean it is current. In other words, does a wildfire that is still burning and has not been contained (thus information is changing daily) qualify as a "Current wildfire" even if only a couple of edits a day are taking place?'''

The statement up for discussion is:

Any wildfire that is actively burning and has not been contained, qualifies as an active and current wildfire and thus should have current wildfire placed upon the page until it is 100% contained. --- Please place all support/oppose/comment etc below. Thanks! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - edits are irrelevant to whether or not a fire is current. Common sense dictates that "current" should apply only to a wildfire that is actively burning. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as stated, current has to do with whether or not it is a currently burning fire, not how many edits the page has. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A burning wildfire seems like it would be "current". I, too, see the number of edits as immaterial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - How is this not common sense? If it is actively burning and not contained then it is CURRENT... --23.239.224.2 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Something that frustrates the heck out of me is the user "Yellowdesk" quickly patrolling any article that uses the current template, even articles that are brand new. If an event is underway, the current template should never be removed during the first 24 hours. Using this template isn't simply for numerous edits. The template adds the article to the current events page. We have a current events page for a reason. I support using the current event template on any article about an active wildfire.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure why this is even a question. There's a clear definition of the word "current" that absolutely applies here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Current wildfire redux
Keep in mind that this "100 percent contained" threshold should not be an absolute strict rule. If an article is not updated in several weeks or months, it may indicate far more serious issues. Wikipedia is not news and separate stand-alone articles on such current events may no longer pass Wikipedia's General notability guideline. This is especially true if an article relies on only one source like this one that currently says, "This will be the last update" when it still lists it being only 97 percent contained as of 9 October (more than a month ago). Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * fair enough. There are some wildfires in the California (for example) that have hun at 95-99% contained for 3+ months. The rule of thumb should be if it isn't contained, it is current, but exceptions can certainly be made. :-) Good point and thanks for bringing it up! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)