Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23 edit

Template:ASP World Tour Women edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template belonged to a WikiProject (Wikiproject Surfing), which no longer exists. It was barely used and contains those from the 2006 season only. — --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I request that this template be kept as i have just updated it to 2008 season. It just needs updating each year to be current. It is used on the pages of Pro Women Surfers. Boylo (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StormWatch edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as the Hurricane Warning template. Violates WP:NDA, and is not used in any articles. {{Current disaster}} does the same thing but does not violate WP:NDA.. ViperSnake151 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I said at the other template, we're not here to tell people what to do, and the News and Weather broadcasts will be more active and reliable than a Wikipedia article. PeterSymonds | talk 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)d[reply]
Keep-Pretty much same as I said on the hurricane warning template. Short version: preserving lives>complying with policy.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PeterSymonds. Attempting to maintain a list of active watches is a tremendously bad idea. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NDA. --Kildor (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A concert of kings as the white sea snaps... erm... delete. Covered adequately by {{Current disaster}}. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It may volate WP:NDA, but the general disclaimer does not cover tornado watches. It is in no way covered by {{Current disaster}}. Information about current weather should not be on Wikipedia, but something telling people that use Wikipedia for all information, which many people do, about PDS tornado watches should be there. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After seeing Black Falcon's vote, I wanted to bring this up. Maintaining a list of watches is very fesiable. It appears that Black Falcon is getting watches confused with warnings. Maintaining a list of warnings would be impossible. Watches are issued hours in advance of severe, and only a few are issued even for the largest outbreaks as they cover large geographical areas, not small counties like warnings. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it takes 5 minutes to revert an act of vandalism that introduces false information (or removes information) regarding whether a watch is in effect, that's five minutes during which the article is presenting misleading emergency information. It's better to keep in mind WP:NOT#IINFO (we are not an emergency information website) and to not attempt to provide such information in any form. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nevere seen an instance of vandalism regarding an article with a storm watch template. Artciles that have the template are usually heavily edited and watched by WP:METEO and WP:SEVERE members, including me. As for the argument with WP:NOT#INFO, when you think about, watches are partially encylopedic. We include information about breaking news, so why not breaking weather. Breaking weather can affect many, many people, in contrast to breaking news, which directly impacts few. Watch info is easy to keep updated, and helps to protect the lives of Wikiholics. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither have I, but that doesn't mean it can't happen (and vandalism isn't the only way that inaccurate information could make its way into an article -- editors can make good-faith mistakes). As for the second issue, we generally shouldn't attempt to be a provider of breaking news stories (see WP:NOT#NEWS). I don't support the position that we should delete articles about newsworthy events per WP:NOT#NEWS (unless the event cannot be shown to be notable), but that doesn't mean that we should give readers the impression that they should turn to Wikipedia for their news. I feel that this template does just that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Wikipedia should be a news source or a time-critical weather source. However, many people just happen to be browsing through Wikipedia when they come upon Tornadoes of 2008 and see that they are under a PDS tornado watch. This has never happened to me because I have three weather radios. I also want to add that we do not use this template fof severe thunderstorm watches with low probabilities, we only use the template if there is a moderate or high risk of severe weather. Some of these events, especially high risk events, warrnat articles. Information pertaining to the severe weather, therefore, including wathces, is notable. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an unlikely sequences of events; I think it's far more likely that someone knows they may be in an area affected by severe weather and comes to Wikipedia on information. If they do come here for information, it's better if they find no information than if they find outdated or incorrect information. I do not contest that information about watches may be relevant to the article, but it does not need to be displayed in a box at the top of the article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it would be hard to present incorrect information. All of our information comes directly from the source, at this page. Where else do you suggest we display it then, it is the nost important piece of information in the article if a PDS or other high end watch is in effect? Also, if the vote is delete, maybe it would be best to at least keep it through the end of severe weather season. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reason as {{Hurricane Warning}}, i.e. it's made redundant by {{Current disaster}} and is a disclaimer template. Terraxos (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{current disaster}} needs more work if it is to replace {{StormWatch}} including a section for links to weather watches. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.