Template talk:Nn-warn-deletion

"or soon will be" addition
We already have nn-warn for tagged articles. This template seems like it's for admins to use after they have deleted an article. Is there any reason to add the "or soon will be" in that case? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the reversion - but I suppose it adds more flexibility for everyone if "or so will be" is there. E.g. used by Admin that tells user of deletion first and then deletes. Though I suppose it is not designed for normal users, because importantly it does miss out the "hand-on" information. Cheers Lethaniol 10:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see why you reverted it. That was the right thing to do. I'm not sure why I didn't see nn-warn when I was looking for a template to use... I usually go to WP:TUSER to find the right template, and I can't think of any reason why I wouldn't have the time I ended up using this one, but nn-warn is clearly listed there so I wonder why didn't use that one and how I found this one... Ah well, I guess it's not important. *shrug* --Icarus (Hi!) 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Header
The title is not showing when the user provides no header. -- ReyBrujo 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that is correct - unless the editor requests a header - as explained on the template page - then there is no header as default. Cheers Lethaniol 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish there were a single standard. We have templates that never leave headers, templates that may or may not leave headers, and templates that always leave headers. It becomes pretty confusing after a time. -- ReyBrujo 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think there will soon be a standard - this issue was discussed here - and this Wikiproject has the stated goals of removing all headers as standard - I thought this solution allowing for both was quite good - but I have not implemented in many templates only nn/spam/empty warn and deletion notifications... Lol just noticed that it was on your suggestion Rey that I got involved in this see User:Lethaniol/Archive1 Cheers Lethaniol 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And so the circle closes itself :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Section edit problem
The optional header in this template causes a section edit problem on a page. For example, try editing the section User talk:Qwert uyi. The header in this template appears as normal on the page, but does not create an editable section and causes the next section to be opened (hence why the example is blank - there is no next section), breaking the rest of the page. This feature should be removed until a way can be found to generate fully working headers. mattbr30 11:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe a solution has been found (see Template:nn-warn) - if confirmed, I will change the template to incorporate this solution. Cheers Lethaniol 11:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay you have changed it already Matt - ty - tell us if it dont work again :):) Cheers Lethaniol 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works (I have tested it in the sandbox) and I have changed the template. Thanks for the quick reply, (ec - you are too quick!) mattbr30 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict lol) Actually the only problem with this solution is that the template has to be subst: or it does not work. Not sure if this is a problem or not. Cheers Lethaniol 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No it won't work if it's not subst'ed, but it still shows a header even if you subst it and don't want one! After some testing, this seems to work (tested using this here):
 * Although it still just produces the code if you don't subst it, but this should be subst'ed so I don't think it's too critical. mattbr30 13:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That works perfectly thanks Matt - note point taken on the subst issue ty. Cheers Lethaniol 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, people don't subst a template if you (supposedly) drill it into their head, possibly due to not being sure about what it means... but oh well.  Grace notes T  &#167; 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, people don't subst a template if you (supposedly) drill it into their head, possibly due to not being sure about what it means... but oh well.  Grace notes T  &#167; 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Add usage to /doc page
editprotected The usage listed in the article (everything after ) should be moved to the documentation page provided. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, except for the protected page template (no clear consensus on which page this belongs on). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recovery instructions proposal
I've proposed adding a sentence to help those new potential contributors who are willing and able to try to improve nn articles understand the WP:USERFY and/or WP:INCUBATOR process(es) at Village pump (proposals). Selery (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013
Can you add  in between the last sentence and Template:Nn-warn-deletion? Greatly appreciated.

buffbills7701 21:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and undone. Revert. This makes the template behave differently from how people used to it will expect, and it really is not uncontroversial enough to be done without discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2015
I have nominated this template for deletion, please add the TFD tag on the template with noinclude tags. --TL22 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

TL<b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)