Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Third opinion/Instructions

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn per below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion/Instructions


This page is unused. OTOH, Third_opinion/Header and Third_opinion/Footer are needed, and I'm in the process of making 'em and using 'em in Third_opinion. Elvey (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Invalid rationale, page is used as an editintro from Third opinion (currently via Third opinion/Header). Although it appears Elvey has currently broken it by removing the section headers from Third opinion. Anomie⚔ 16:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/:Wikipedia:Third_opinion/Instructions&limit=999 shows no such use. And there was no such use (IIRC) before I moved content to ~Header and ~Footer.  I'll take another look. Took another look.  There's just a reference to it within a  nonfunctional (for me anyway) use of the fullurl template. Was not working before either. --Elvey (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The "nonfunctional (for me anyway) use of the fullurl template" is exactly what I am referring to. And the link from the old revision of the article is still trying to edit the current version of the article, where you've broken it; try adding the oldid to the link, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Wikipedia%3AThird+opinion%2FInstructions&oldid=554739847 like this]. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You lost me. I'm not seeing a point or problem. I guess we can wait for someone else to pop in. --Elvey (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is broken. Reverting the change to the main 3O page makes the "add" link open an editing page with this instruction panel as an editnotice and with the current disputes preloaded. For now, that's what should be done, until someone can figure out how to split the page up without breaking said functionality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I understand you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&action=history indicates Thumperward confirmed that a revert "fixes the edit notice".  --Elvey (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And I get what Anomie was saying now too. Maybe someone who understands the fullurl template can take over and complete what I was trying to do; I'll try to figure it out today. Oh, and of course, I see there's no reason to delete this page! --Elvey (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've reverted the header/footer breakout at which Elvey made a good faith try because it had broken the ability to just click the "Edit" link on the listing section to add a dispute. Frankly, I'm one of the most frequent contributors at 3O and had never clicked the link that invokes this page until this came up. This page needs to stay so long as that link is there. If the link is removed, then this page isn't needed, but that needs to be discussed at the 3O talk page, as does the header/footer breakout. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I came here to say I'll be AFK for a few days. Apologies for not having time to figure out how to fix my own breakage w/o reverting. I'm the nominee and I already said, 'there's no reason to delete this page'.  --Elvey (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.