Template talk:Current weather event/Archive 1

Necessary?
Is this really necessary? Did the Legal say so? &mdash;BenFrantzDale 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reasoning behind it is legal; it's rather humanitarian. We really don't want people risking theiir lives on a page that could be vandalized.--Pharos 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --  user:zanimum

Can you say whether or not 24.250.136.236 04:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I am one of the many people that will be affected by Hurricane Rita, and I appreciate those that made this warning. ~ BRO-co03 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This template is essentially the same one that was used on the Hurricane Katrina article during landfall. While the article turned out well enough, we did experience a fair amount of false information throughout the course of the article's development; mainly as a result of unsubstantiated rumors being added as well as vandals of the sneakier sort. I think it's only fair that we warn people of this possibility. -Loren 06:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. &mdash;BenFrantzDale 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And I think Loren's capsulization there is probably the best explanation to those in the "who do we think we are that people would listen to us" and "are our readers really that stupid?" camps, as well. Would the extra sentence pointing out that anyone can edit be worth adding? --Baylink 18:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Style
This template will almost always be used with. I would suggest that come first for two reasons. First, the currentness of the article includes the hurricane warning. Second, HurricaneWarning is wide, so having the little box under the wide HurricaneWarning box looks weird. I will go ahead and make that change to Hurricane Rita. &mdash;BenFrantzDale 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What about including at the top of this template?  Like you say they will generally go together.  Is there any situation where they wouldn't go together? Jdorje 05:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason why it wouldn't, and I concur: merge it in. --Baylink 18:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Link?
I'm not familiar with the features of MediaWiki's templates, but it would be nice if the HurricaneWarning linked to Hurricane Rita, at least when it is used on other pages like Houston, Texas. Can that be done easily? &mdash;BenFrantzDale 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be, if the template were not protected, by making it into a link, i.e. replacing with [] . --Mysidia (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, what do you think of Template:HurricaneWarning2 and Houston, Texas ? --Mysidia (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I think would be better since it would allow for arbitrary names of hurricanes (in case it needs a year disambiguating it or for whatever reason if it doesn't start with "Hurricane "). Can a template have an optional second argument that could be used as the link target? &mdash;BenFrantzDale 23:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made it into .  With the current software, there's no way to make an optional parameter -- the usual strategy, is to have one version of the template that accepts a parameter, and one that doesn't, as is the case with Delete and Deletebecause.  --Mysidia (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I just changed it so the isn't in link brackets, that way when it is used on said hurricane's page, it doesn't create  a link back to that page. Can an admin edit this page, HurricaneWarning, to be HurricaneWarning2? &mdash;BenFrantzDale 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. -Loren 04:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Great. I just updated everything that links to it and added usage above. &mdash;BenFrantzDale 04:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait, it's ok for it to link to itself, self-links always just appear in bold. For instance, a link to this very talk page: Template talk:HurricaneWarning. --Mysidia (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Evacuate your vehicle?
I read somewhere around here that the word 'vehicle' was added to the template to refer to a camper, mobile home, or other 'live in' vehicle. I think this is a little redundant with 'shelter'. To me, it really reads as 'in motion vehicle' rather than something that can be both a shelter AND a moving vehicle. I suggest dropping 'vehicle' completely. -- Ch'marr 07:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -Loren 08:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I removed the command at the end of the template telling people how to decide whether or not to evacuate, because it is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Huh? Jdorje 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this different than medical articles
We don't duplicate the Medical disclaimer into a template message on all medicine related articles. Why do we need to duplicate General disclaimer and Risk disclaimer on hurricane articles? Sancho 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As i see it Tropical Cyclone Articles are LIVE where as Medical Articles are not live Jason Rees 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think of medical conditions as "live" as they are happening to somebody right now and medical research is being done on many of them right now.Sancho 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Future
People who are going to be affected should probably heed the advice in the template, too. So, I changed it. 10:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimers
How is this not a complete violation of WP:NDT? Seems to me like it shouldn't be here.194.169.192.139 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked a few sections above basically the same question. I then realized that extensive discussion had already taken place at a templates for deletion discussion. For some reason, consensus was that this case is an exception to WP:NDT, and that stepping outside of the encyclopedic goals of this project is acceptable when creating an article on a currently active hurricane. Sancho 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia policy is negotiable? It seems to me like this is exactly the type of thing WP:NDT was intended to cover. It seems the discussion basically says guidelines don't apply 'cause they just don't. This is stupid.194.169.192.139 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very new policy... less than a few weeks. The old discussion was from over a year ago. I wouldn't call the participants of that discussion "stupid". In any case, I nominated this template for deletion. Sancho 23:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many things wrong this this template. It emphasizes drama and authority and it uses present tense. We should just get rid of it altogether.--75.36.172.192 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia policy is negotiable. It wasn't handed down from on high...well, most of it wasn't. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking a position on the desirablity or otherwise of the template, but it's probably worth saying that WP:NDT is a guideline, not a policy. Loganberry (Talk) 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ambox
I'm supposed to be on wikibreak, but shouldn't the template work in all browsers? With ambox, it doesn't appear properly in Safari. – Chacor 01:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with it? There have been ongoing image issues on the server side, if that's the problem. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

their?
Anyone think it should be "their respective authorities" since the Subject of the sentence is "Residents"

Residents of areas under threat from or affected by are advised to seek information from *their* respective authorities.

Zanter 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.yourdictionary.com/respective Zanter (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not belong on an encyclopedia
An encyclopedia is a long, slow project that can never claim to be up to date. These facts are covered in our site disclaimer (which is linked from every page you read, if you're reading Wikipedia). Adding "current event"-related templates to articles, giving whatever information, misrepresents what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't Usenet, or Google News, or indeed any kind of information source that can be relied upon to give information that is both accurate and up-to-date. Of course, neither Uaenet not Google News are reliable either. But at least we don't squat on the turf in a position that might be interpreted as a claim to ownership.

This template should not be used. It has no place here. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been put up on WP:TFD twice and the conclusion was that this template is an exception to the rule WP:NDA using WP:IAR. ---CWY2190TC 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of template
The current template is at WP:TFD and points have been raised that it does not comply with a guideline regarding no disclaimers in articles. The text in the article is currently:


 * Information in this article may not be current or applicable to your area. Residents of areas under threat from or affected by   are advised to seek information from the respective authorities.

Given that not all storms are major and that some are more powerful that others but all can cause significant damage i wish to propose a change in this template, based apon the, to as follows:


 * ATTENTION: This article documents a current tropical cyclone. Information regarding may change rapidly as the event progresses. Though this article is updated frequently, it may not reflect the most current information about this cyclone.

Seddon69 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done. Need to get consensus first. --- RockMFR 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the change, and I will change it if others agree. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the change as well. So it doesn't violate the policies pointed out at the TFD. Mitch32contribs 01:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I support, as well. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reopened to gather consensus

Support, change it into a pre-loaded version of Current disaster if you want. It's the ATTENTION that bothers me and I believe violates WP:NDA. ViperSnake151 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - one doesn't re-open to gather consensus, one opens an RFC to gather consensus, but in any case it appears that you have reached consensus on the proposed edit. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Hurricanehink. Happy‑melon 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of this template
Since it' just a pre-loaded version of current disaster, maybe it should simply be redirected to that template? I say this in light of the fact that I have been unable to make some of the parameters from current disaster work with this template (i.e. the new red=yes parameter). It seems silly to have to modify this template every time that current disaster is modified. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)