 | This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles | | | Template | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
|
I'm not sure what the original intent of this template was, but recently looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Current disaster list during the past couple of days, it did not seem to be used in the spirit of Wikipedia:Current event templates. These current event templates are primary used to warn editors and readers that an article is experiencing a great flux of edits and massive updates in a given day. They are NOT intended to merely mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic, or merely to mark that it may be inaccurate; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. See also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. On the articles that I just removed this tag from, there were no significant updates on those pages for the past few days. And accordingly, I expanded the doc page to be similar to Template:Current related/doc, as well as changing the wording to be similar to Template:Current related. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
- A couple of the articles that I removed this tag from involved wildfires. If there is to be a "wildfire not 100 percent contained (regardless of no. of edits per day)" threshold like what was discussed on Template talk:Current disaster#What qualifies as 'current', then there should be a separate sub-template created like Template:Current wildfire clarifying this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Of course, I would not be in favor of such a hard, strict "100 percent contained" rule on these wildfire list pages when you have a source like this that currently says, "This will be the last update for the Fork Complex" when it still lists it being only 97 percent contained as of 9 October (more than a month ago). Or this source on the Gasquet fire that has not been update since 27 September, still listing only 68 percent contained and an estimated containment date of 15 October. You might as well instead put {{update}} on there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
