This template is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
I would like to gather consensus for a change in the text of this template to add a warning not to refer to Wikipedia for current watches and warnings and to instead refer to their local meteorologist (or something like that). I know it sounds like a given, but this is the internet. I feel this may be especially useful on high-impact weather events, such as Hurricane Mathew (which is currently using this template). I do realize that the current template somewhat addresses this, but I also feel this should be made a bit clearer (Again, because this is the internet.) on some current weather event articles. Perhaps, if this isn't viable for default text, it might be viable as a parameter, such as |severe=yes or something like that. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, not just for severe events, and would suggest changing the template to read:
"This article documents a current weather event. Information regarding it may change rapidly as more information becomes available; news reports and other primary sources may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information about this weather event for all areas; please refer to your local weather service or media outlets for the latest weather information pertaining to a specific location."
The historic interpretation of NDA for current templates is that it is considered an exemption, insofar that the templates only disclaim that an article is undergoing frequent edits due to the timely nature of its subject. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wording looks great! I don't think we'd even need to program in a second parameter to add it because the new wording is pretty neutral. Although I would probably change "a specific location" to "your location" because I doubt "your local weather service" in Orlando, FL would cover weather in Charleston, SC. —Gestrid (talk)05:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would agree with using IAR because, as I said, this is the internet. We don't want people relying on Wikipedia for information that could save their lives. —Gestrid (talk)21:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, anyone who is silly enough to rely on Wikipedia for the latest, up-to-date, current information should get full-force whatever is coming to them... 8) United States Man (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus here seems to be for the change. Could someone more skilled with templates than I am make the change? I don't want to break anything. —Gestrid (talk)06:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of an optional parameter to list a primary, official link to latest weather information
A discussion was initiated, now archived at Talk:Hurricane Irma/Archive 2#Active hurricane disclaimer?, after someone added an ad hoc "Active hurricane disclaimer" notice on that page.[1] It was concluded that this ad hoc notice was primarily redundant, except for the addition of an external link to a primary, official source of the latest weather information. It was then suggested that another parameter could be added here to {{Current weather event}} to allow such an external link. However, the debate then became inactive without any further action or consensus here. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it would be a good idea to link to the advisories for weather events like a hurricane or tropical storm. Not only would we be saying "Hey, don't use us to get current information," but also "Use this instead." Whoever said it's an important piece of information in the original discussion wasn't wrong. And before anyone points out something along the lines of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, the template itself is already a disclaimer. We also (as recently as last year) invoked WP:IAR (specifically, ignoring NODISCLAIMERS) to make the change given just above this discussion, so there is a precedent for making changes if this type to this template. —Gestrid (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now modified it to get something working, and then added it to Hurricane Nate (2017). However, I only added the unnamed value parameters of {{2}} and {{3}}. I have not added any named parameter options for them yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I think we need more of a consensus in order to make the change, regardless of what the outcome of the last discussion was. I know you're an admin, and you have probably already done this, but have you posted about this discussion to relevant WikiProject talk pages? —Gestrid (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did the recent bold changes because there is a wider community consensus to avoid inserting redundant or similar tags at the top of the page. This has been stated on WP:OVERTAGGING# and WP:CLEANUPTAG, among other guideline and essay pages. Right now, it is meant as an interim solution, as, again, it was recently posted on Hurricane Nate (2017).[4] And as I stated, another user attempted to save this notice into the template namespace as Template:Hurricane disclaimer, but it got deleted under WP:T2. We can gather more input, but the wider community consensus regarding template tags would say to either merge these redundant "active hurricane disclaimer" notices or stop using them altogether. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
