Template talk:Los Angeles weatherbox
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 22 January 2011. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Sources - one line or two?
editSubtropical-man said in a change comment:
- revert - why create a new line in the Infobox weather? better to give two sources in one line.
Perhaps. Probably, even - in fact, I think both lines should be eliminated in favor of reference markers. See my proposal at Template:Infobox weather. However, until that point, Template:Infobox weather thinks that multiple sources should be listed on multiple lines. In the interests of consistency, this template should give the sources to the lower-level template for it to handle however it likes. If we decide that two lines is wrong, let's fix the underlying template so that all articles that use weatherboxes with two sources look the same. Jordan Brown (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
second source for infobox?
editdoes anyone paying attention to this template mind if i cut out the second source: <:ref>"NOAA". NOAA.</ref>
the link is dead, and the information all seems to be contained in the first source anyway.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- well, i waited two weeks, no complaints, so i went ahead and did it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)