Template talk:Nn-warn

Authorship
I created this template for the use of new-page patrollers and anyone else who tags speedy deletes under A7 (nn-bios). DES (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit
Just copy edited this. Re-setting talk link. Sorry for delay, WP seemed inaccesible for the longest time.— enceph alon  10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Test: William Shakespeare produces:

William Shakespeare
I have placed a tag on the article William Shakespeare, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person but it does not indicate how or why that person is notable. If the person really is notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly to indicate why, and also put a note on Talk:William Shakespeare. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under "Articles".

Removal of speedy tag
Someone edited the template to suggest that if the creator could demonstrate notability, the speedy tag should be removed. IMO this is wrong! I would revert such a removal as vandalism. Any deleting admin should check the history and the talk page, and if any claim to notability is presnt, and particularly if the article has been expanded since it was tagged, should not delete. Remember that this template is specifically addressed to the creator of the tagged article. We should not encourage the creator to remove the tag, that is just asking for edit wars. I have re-edited the template to remove any such suggestion. Please do not restore it, particularly without discussing the matter here first. DES (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you're coming from. The current formulation is clearer than your previous, so I'm not going to edit it. This one leaves no space for paradoxal interpretations. Good job. -- SoothingR 19:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. if you can suggest further improvements in wording, by all means do so. DES (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag, under any circumstances"! I remove speedy deletion tags when I think they should not be there, sometimes replacing them with the afd process. Others should be allowed to do the same, so I am taking it this extreme instruction. --Henrygb 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is gererally considerd impropoer for the author of the article to remove a speedy tag under such circumstances. DES (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:nothanks-vanity
I think this template got created with good intentions, and may have kinder wording than what is found here. Any opinions on a merge of the text from the other? -- nae'blis (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest we keep both, I think both might be appropriate at different times. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For one thing, nothanks-vanity is specifically for a page about the author, which this is not. DES (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Header
As originally drafted, this template added a section header, as it was intended to be used in a separate section of a talk page. That is still how i invariably use it. The header was removed from the trmpleate without discussion, and without changing the usage notes -- which still say that a header is created.

If the IF tempaltes had not been deprecated, i would suggest using one. I personally would prefer restoring the header, as I think warning should normally be preceeded by proper individual headers, but I would like to hear other people's views before doign so. DES (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is a few months old, but I totally wished there was a header created when I used this template today. Adding the header manually isn't terrible, but is still time consuming and annoying. I'd move to bring the header back.--Andrew c 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remove the header; with a header on the template itself the '+' button can't be used to apply this template like it can with all the others (,, etc.); it must look confusing to users who end up with two headers above their warnings. Perhaps there should be two versions, one with a header and one without. --ais523 09:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, standard practice is for warning tags to not have self-created headers. I've removed it from the template. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tags about a specific page generally have headers; all of the image notification ones do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to WP:BIO
I have added a link to Notability (people) to the text of the template. DES (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"I have placed..."
I'm going to change this line to "A speedy deletion tag has been placed..." so people can put nn-warn on user pages without having actually done the speedy deletion tag. Most of the time, people who tag pages don't inform the user of why. JHMM13 (T | C)  05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor change
I removed the "your" (i.e. "your article"). "Ownership of articles" is a big enough problem as it is and users who will be getting this template are especially likely to fall into that trap. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks per changes to WP:CSD A7
The criteria for speedy deletion have undergone quite a few changes recently, and I have updated this warning template in accordance with those. I have expanded this warning message to include all of the things under CSD A7 ("a person, group of people, band, club, company or website"), and instead of the messy "he/she/they is/are" bit, I've changed it to say, "...why the subject is notable". I'm keeping a close watch on the ongoing debates over there, and will try to keep this template updated. -- Merope Talk 15:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

rewrite
I've rewritten much of the text with an eye towards an unfamiliar reader, since many of the people who see this tag will probably be getting their very first message as a wikipedia editor, and we need to avoid jargon and explain things in a very friendly manner to people who probably mean well but could use a helping hand. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Headline
I added a headline to the info-tag. It is easily hidden between other text on the talk page, so headline is better.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE Make up your minds
From one day to the next I have no idea whether this template is going to create a headline or not, so I end up with two or none. SOMEBODY please make a decision and stick to it. Fan-1967 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All the other templates in the cat have a headline so I suppose it should stay. Cheers Lethaniol 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Today, it doesn't have a headline. Bubba hotep 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nn-notice
Am looking to clean up some of these CSD nomination templates. It looks like Template:Nn-notice is redundant, and covered much better by this template. Anybody bothered if I merge. If no response after weekend will merge, and redirect Nn-notice here. Cheers Lethaniol 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As no one objected I have merged these two. I wait a day or two and see if someone comes and complains, and then go through all the nn-notice What Links here (100+) and remove its link from the important ones e.g. lists of Templates. There is currently no double redirects - so no problem there. Lethaniol 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm complaining now = P. has to be kept distinct from  as some administrators like myself speedily delete articles AND THEN notify the creator of the fact. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have redirected nn-notice to a specific Template:nn-warn-deletion instead, for use once article has been deleted. Cheers Lethaniol 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No Header
Reverted to no header as agreed here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Cheers Lethaniol 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I saw that, and I strongly disagree. Unless the CSD templates are updated to provide copy-paste ready text for the creation of warnings WITH headers, then if a user is creating lots of NN articles, either the CVU patroller has to manually type "|header=1" every time (which is a major pain in the ass), or else the talk page will become very hard to read as it fills up with warnings.  Look at most peoples' talk pages: there is one section header for each message, no matter the content. --Dgies 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot possibly fathom what harm a heading does, and not having one is a pain since: (1)those who want one have to manually add one - nullifying the benifit of a template, and (2) it is not easily dicernible to see who is a repeat offender, how many times they offended, if they keep recreating the same deleted article, etc... Headings make this much simpler.  Even ten more seconds can make a huge difference for a patroller.  I often view the page, tag it and warm the person in less than 45 seconds.  Having to add headings, sort through offenses, etc... can slow me down by half.-- Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this issue has been discussed in a bit of depth see link above - if you want to bring up the issue again I suggest you do so at WP:CSD. Of course you can you use the "new" format to add a header, without having to do it manually. I will also point you to WP:UW which will be removing all heading from userbox warnings - so you might want to bring it up there too. Cheers Lethaniol 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Header, possibly error?
I think there is an error in the header code for this template, per this talk page, where a message left by User:ThePointblank ended up having an edit button that functioned for my section below, but not its own section. Logical2uTalk 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I don't know/ Have checked out User talk:Teenage-dilemma-93 - and both the edit buttons seem to be working. Cheers Lethaniol 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but I edited the page after one didn't work. Roll back a couple of edits and try it, maybe. Actually, what the hell, let's stick one in here... Logical2uTalk 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, something about the template/header thing is messing up what the edit button does. Check out the template below (IE: Click edit on it), and you'll see that the edit page is blank for some reason. Logical2uTalk 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite right - clicking on the edit button brings up a blank page that if edited and saved does nothing. Am at work at the moment will investigate more later Cheers Lethaniol 15:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I forgot to address this issue but it looks like the recent edit has fixed this problem. Cheers Lethaniol 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on (name of deleted page), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. (Added by Logical2uTalk)


 * Header nowikied to avoid problems on this page -- do tests on a test page, please. DES (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Making the template more generic
This template currently seems to be aimed at articles only. I think it would be nice if it was more generic so that it could be used for images, categories, redirects and everything else. Does anyone object to this? The template will only need to be reworded slightly for this to happen. --Android Mouse 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would, very strongly. The template follows WP:CSD. A7 is strictly limioted to articels, and to articles of rather narrowly defiend types at that (people, groups, clubs, bands, and companies). These are the only cases in which a speedy deltion for "failure to assert notability" is warrented. there are other db- tempaltes matching the various other speedy deletion criteria. they are all listed on WP:CSD, I think. Use the proper existign template, or use prod if none fits. DES (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't aware of template:prod, which was exactly what I was looking for. --Android Mouse 21:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you might want to read through Proposed deletion, Prod is not generally used on categories, tempaltes, or images, as I understand it. DES (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that, thanks again. --Android Mouse 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the "hangon" mention accurate?
That I've seen, the speedy deletes are happening so quickly that no-one would stand a chance to add "hangon" to the article before it is actually deleted. I'm not complaining that they are deleted so quickly (after all, it is supposed in a speedy fashion because the case is obvious), but I am complaining that Nn-warn says that the article can be kept by using it, when in reality, the vast majority of the time it appears there is no chance of that actually being possible.

Proposal: Remove the hangon mention from Nn-warn, and any other templates which might get used with regards to a speedy delete. Mrand T-C 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that speedy deletions can sometimes happen Too Quickly ... that's why I've been developing some deletion warning protocols to give editors a little more time ... what we need to recognize is the difference between "damaged" and "broken" ... one can be repaired, but the other is beyond repair and should be discarded.


 * As a simple rule of thumb: if you think that a WP:CSD might be declined by Some Other Editor, then use a WP:PROD instead ... try using the  and   templates to ping the author, then wait for a few hours and readdress it with the appropriate (i.e., either proposed or speedy) deletion tag ... try to reserve speedy deletions for the "kill it before it grows" variety of articles, and use the warning templates as both a courtesy and as an audit trail. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash; 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning flag
I noticed that the  template now has a YELLOW warning flag, and thought that this should have one as well ... OTOH, if you think that a RED flag would be more appropriate (or not), then go ahead and change (or revert) my addition ... Happy Editing! &mdash; 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template
It is possible to have an optional customized reason added to this template, as in Template:nn-warn-reason, using a parser function, thus negating the need for Template:nn-warn-reason to exist separately. Before I proceed, I need to know how Template:nn-warn-reason is used. Is the customized warning used to identify which of the categories in Template:nn-warn the article is within (company, band, organization, etc.)? Or do its users actually provide a unique customized reason? The answer would affect how the parser function in this template is designed. Alternatively, is there an explanation I'm not considering as to why separate templates would be needed? Thank you for your comments. Bsherr (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a speedy deletion template that allows a editor to recommend a speedy deletion for reasons not covered under policy. This template pulls whatever the reason that the editor provides and inserts that text into the warning message, which I think is useful.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's interesting. Indeed, Template:db-reason does.  But that's probably a mistake, because Template:nn-warn-reason was written only to apply to A7.  Here's the template text; see the text I've bolded in particular:


 * That's also why it has "nn" in its name. Depending on the course of this discussion, we'll either need another template for Template:db-reason, or we'll need to rename and modify Template:nn-warn-reason.  I'm going to temporarily "comment out" the affected part of db-reason and post an explanation on its talk page until we're resolved here. Thanks for pointing this out.  Bsherr (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update to my last. The administrator who reviewed the edit request insisted, instead of temporarily turning off the db-notice template instructions, that I proceed without delay to modify Template:nn-warn-reason or create a new template.  So I've created a new template, Template:db-reason-notice, the name being consistent with the form of most of the db-notice templates.  There seems to be a preference for "notice" instead of "warn".  I know that for this template there is a "notice" iteration for use after a page has already been deleted.  Ultimately, we should probably reverse those two.  The one presently labeled notice is more like a user warning, and should probably be renamed with warn insted of notice, and vice versa for this template.  The discussion for editing Template:db-reason is at Template talk:Db-meta.  Bsherr (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since nothing further, I've proposed nn-warn-reason for deletion. Please continue discussion at Templates for discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed icon change
Please see, Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, no consensus achieved, RfC initiated: Template talk:AfD-notice :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

wording
I'm trimming the wording a  little, without changing the meaning at. Experience show that users do not actually read all the contents,especially about hangon tags.  DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)