Template talk:Hurricane disambig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Purpose

To distinguish hurricane disambiguation pages. See Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation.

Depreceated. Not longer used. Used {{disambig}} with [[Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation]] instead.

[edit] Usage

Simply include {{hurricaname disambig}} at the end of the disambiguation article. (see above)--Commander Keane 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for removal of this template

There are various reasons why this template needs to stop being used. First of all: consistency. All disambiguation pages should have a recognisable template. This one looks different (with a picture etc) and that's unnecessarily confusing. Also, it has the possibility for being incorrect. Take Hurricane Earl. What if there is a movie about a hurricane on Mars that's called Hurricane Earl. Clearly it would go on the disambiguation page - but {{Hurricane disambig}} would be wrong and could not be used. Using a category and {{disambig}} is simpler and more correct.--Commander Keane 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if every hurricane disambiguation article has the exact same code (dab + category), why should it not be made into a template? You have a good point about the appearance of the template, and I have no objection to changing that, although I don't know of any tc disambig pages that would be confused with anything other than tropical cyclones. Or perhaps these pages aren't disambiguations at all, and should be renamed to List of tropical cyclones called Earl (I don't think so, but one could make the argument)? — jdorje (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly could be argued that these pages are not disambiguation pages - since they deal with the usage of single hurricane name (I don't know if you want to treat them differenty, there doesn't seem to be much to gain). It seems that you agree with the change mostly, just that you are concerned with the extra effort of placing a template and category. I disagree, since {{disambig}} is standard you don't have to learn to use antoher template, and you just pop on the category instead. So can I go ahead and make the change, or you still object?--Commander Keane 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to change the hurricane_disambig template itself just to be a wrapper for the disambig template plus the category, so no changes to other articles are needed. However I suppose if you're willing to make the changes to subst those two bits into articles in place of the hurricane_disambig template, I won't object. There are a lot of articles to be changed though. — jdorje (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)