Template talk:Unsigned/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Unsigned. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Varia

The added nbsp makes the space look much to big for me; Unless you intend there to be more space between the "by" and the link than between the other words, I think you may be trying to fix a problem in your browser's rendering here: Italic text and regular text shouldn't need artificial spacing between them. --W(t) 19:45, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Remember that unlike in page histories, times on talk pages are not converted by the sytem to local time. Therefore "UTC" should be added and UTC times should be used as parameter. I saw in several pages, e.g. Talk:Albert Einstein, that an unspecified local time was used.--Patrick 09:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding nbsp -- sure, I'm trying to fix a problem in my browser's rendering; I've got this odd idea that a page should be readable on all browsers, not just some. A common hard-to-read condition is italic text followed by normal text. Regarding the times, all I do when using this is to cut and paste from the page history. Regarding the addition of that dash -- the second argument is for the date, not the name of the user putting in the template. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I can't recreate any problems with firefox or netscape. --W(t) 11:30, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Firefox, OS X. But it's trivial; if it bothers you enough to need to delete it, 'tsok. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see if it's common first. Anyone else want to give their experiences? --W(t) 15:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

For the record what are the two arguments which can be passed into this template? Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation, Phil B. I should point out that I don't use this directly; a couple days after I created it (and after some people besides me were using it), I got lazy; I realized I could cut and paste the timestamp and user name from the page history and stick a pipe between them -- if I reversed the arguments. But rather than go and edit all the existing uses, I created instead Template:Unsigned2 -- which swaps the paramss and (thanks for the tip, Patrick) appends UTC to the date. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please put back in the UTC time zone info, as it does not seem to work any more. Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Weyes' version of June 26. The new edits made the template much bulkier, in addition to losing the date stamp. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The current template has a redundant {{{2}}} after it, like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) Does anyone mind if I delete it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not redundant. That's the argument that contains the time. Uncle G 23:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a browser issue, but all I see is a 2. Are you seeing the date? I'm using Firefox and Mac OS 10.3.9. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - I just tried with Netscape and I'm still only seeing a 2. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    - You see a 2 when someone hasn't followed the instructions for use, given at the top of this very page. That is not a reason to modify the template. If you see a 2, fix the use of the template. Uncle G 12:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      - So what do I write to get the date instead of 2? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        Er, the date. See the "Usage" section above, on this very page, in particular the example. Uncle G 20:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like this template to include the {{user}} template, as it includes links to talk and contribs. Agree/disagree? --IByte 18:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- There were no objections and I felt the idea was good so I made the change. Maybe someone will revert or discuss it now. --ZeroOne 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Looks good to me! --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

Saying "preceding insigned comment by X" grammatically refers to the template itself. It seems to me like it ought to say "following unsigned comment by X" or "preceding is an unsigned comment by X" (though the first sounds nicer to me. Any thoughts? --Blackcap | talk 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This kind of shorthand is quite common, and not particularly ambiguous, given that the template is placed in the standard place for a signature. Changing "preceding" to "following" would be confusing - it would reverse the apparent meaning of the template. Adding "is" would be fine but wordy; I guess it could be shortened to just "Unsigned comment by X", if there's a real risk non-native speakers will read it according to strict grammatical rules instead of according to English convention? Haeleth 12:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was actually a common way to put the phrase. I was confused by it when I first encountered it (and I'm a Yank with English as my native tongue), and thought a change might do some good. "Unsigned comment by X" seems to work better, but if this is the standard than it's still fairly obvious what message is being sent, even if the grammar is somewhat dubious. --Blackcap | talk 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Blackcap above. The word "preceding" is throwing me off a bit - im not quite sure whether its meant to be put before or after a comment. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant—Ec5618 added the simple words "the" and "is," which makes all the difference [1]. I'm going to go add that into the other unsigned templates. Blackcap (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category tag

Since it's plausible that people will subst this template at times, I believe the category should be here. See Wikipedia:Subst for some more information. The same trick applies to e.g. deletion templates; since people have a tendency to subst them, any noinclude sections cause that to mess up royally. R adiant _>|< 10:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I was going on most other templates in this category having the tag on their main page, and what knowledge I have of the <noinclude> tags. You may be right; since I don't really know, I'm going to defer to you. --Blackcap | talk 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Commons

FYI, I copied this to commons: commons:Template:unsigned. pfctdayelise 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of message by user

I recently used this template on a user who never signed his own messages, but the notice was then removed by him, so the message became unsigned again. What does everyone think about such an action? Shawnc 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Shoot him and burn the body. Who was it? My talk page will do. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm running into the same issue with a disruptive user on Talk:Heaven's Stairway. I would like to discuss this issue with any interested participants. To begin with, if a disruptive user repeatedly removes the unsigned sig from multiple talk page comments, what should the appropriate response be, if any? —Viriditas | Talk 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not against any policy/guideline currently, but I seriously dislike the idea of having them removed (even if by the author themselves). Going through archives and reading comments is significantly more difficult if comments are totally unsigned (with no clue if you're reading comments by the same person or not). You might try asking about this at the talk page for WP:VAND (or seeing if something in the vandalism policy already covers this). WP:SIG might also be something to ask on (from a read of that though, it appears signing your comments is just a matter of etiquette..). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

as --annon where he whould have signed the coment and tell him on his talk page that if you don't want peple to sign your coments then add --annon to it--E-Bod 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out here that the word "Anonymous" doesn't have two Ns in a row, and therefore neither should any abbreviations for it. —Dan 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there wikipedia policy that allows people to sign as anonymous? Generally, if a comment from an anonymous IP doesn't include their IP in their signature then I add an unsigned tag. And if a registered user doesn't include their username in their signature, then I add an unsigned tag. --EarthFurst 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, WP:SIG mentions "anon" signatures: "If you choose to sign this way, you should still type four tildes: --anon ~~~~. --EarthFurst 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Small?

Why is the font used here? My eyes are getting too old. -Jcbarr 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

that's an excellent point, i also do not understand the rationale behind making it small. Themindset 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The template text definitely should be of normal size. joturner 14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

By making the text small, it stands out from the rest of the discussion. Since the format of the template is quite straight-forward, I not sure what the problem is. the first link leads to the User's page, the second to ver Talk page, the third to contributions. The text is certainly not less legible than the rest of the small text on Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should either be small or italic. -- Centrx 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My thinking behind making the font small was to keep it from intruding too much on the conversation. It's not supposed to scream THIS WAS AN UNSIGNED POST; it's supposed to provide just a tiny bit of information to keep the conversation flowing. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To those who find too small - raise the minimum font size in your browser settings. Most modern browsers (supporting CSS) can do that, but some are easier than others. ··gracefool |☺ 09:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Subs't

Recently a bot has been substituting the template on talk pages. This is probably an unnecessary step and as I forsee it is just going to cause problems. Issues have already been raised on User talk:Tawkerbot. Also see WP:SUBST. If anyone else feels the same way about this please make a point on the bot user talk page.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: As of this posting, issue appears to be resolved. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A question (I`m from de:): Is the use without subst allowed/ accepted? If not, is the Category not wrong!? -- Olliminatore 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree we should have a bot subs'ting all of it and we should then semiportect the page instad of protecting it. I support The substing of this template per WP:SUBST#Misc. templates and the Talk page Clearly tells us to Subset it. It is much better for it to be substed than for it to be Protected [2]--E-Bod 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The talk section User talk:Tawkerbot#Please don.27t substituted Template:unsigned

Bug in Tempate?

Per the inclusion of the date discussed above, I needed to replace {{{2|}}} with {{{2}}} when copying the tempate to Wikicities. It worked. Is this a bug? GChriss 04:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I don't think Wikicities has the added functionality of default values yet. This functionality isn't publicly available until the next version of MediaWiki. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken noinclude

Please fix the <noinclude>, it's annoying if articles with it show up in Category:Internal link templates, here's a manually fixed example (diff). Omniplex 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be broken. The noinclude syntax is correct, and random pages I checked aren't in the category. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, better let's not investigate how Murphy managed to copy the <noinclude> category to Talk:Free Republic ;-) Omniplex 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Vô danh]]

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done! -SCEhard T 20:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This inclusion causes an extra line after the template is used. See here for an example. Please fix this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; should be fixed now. -SCEhard T 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary words

Currently we have: —This unsigned comment was added by

I propose shortening it to: —Unsigned comment by

The other words just sound like fluff to me:

This - unnecessary because the text is clearly referring to the preceding comment
was added - unnecessary because there is no other way to make a comment than by adding it, also passive voice sounds bad

Any objections/thoughts? -SCEhard T 19:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Support -- makes sense to me. -- Lisasmall 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- If you ask me... truncating it to a fragment is worse than passive voice.,--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Oni Ookami Alfador. Passive voice is something that I sometimes condone, and I also like to brazenly split infinitives. —David Levy 05:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, prefer passive voice in this particular instance. Oh, and it shoud be "The preceding unsigned comment was added by" (see this version). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support short quick and to the point--E-Bod 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Keep it short so as to not distract from the actual comment itself--Atlantima 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: It has to state what is unsigned, and not have a sentence fragment. "The preceding" or "This" is not a distraction. Anyone who has seen it before will just ignore it if they want, and for anyone who has not seen it before, it must be stated unequivocally what is going on. There is no reason shorten it; a sentence is not fluff. -- Centrx 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Support: +1 for short and snappy — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the others in sync

Note: When this discussion was created, the version in use was this one, so any references to the "current version before April 6th refer to this one.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, can people who edit this please keep the wording of the other unsigned templates (such as {{unsigned2}}) in sync with the wording here? I just noticed unsigned2 is still using "The preceding...". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion they should all go back to "The preceding...". That layout was much better IMO, had much better flow and explained everything well while maintaining subtlety.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer "The preceding..." —David Levy 07:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Blackcap (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion above and in the other section it looks like there is a rough consensus to put it back Since its protected it would be good if an admin were to do just that.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it back to The preceding unsigned comment was added by -The preceding signed comment was added via the Internets by SCEhardt (talk · contribs) on 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :-)

We could take out the "added" bit. That retains identical meaning. Blackcap (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you do that you probably want to make the "The preceding is an unsigned comment by..." Taking out the verb makes it very, well, blunt. Perhaps a little too much so.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, slight variations in the syntax can determine whether the wording seems natural:

"The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jane." = natural

"This is an unsigned comment by Jane." = natural

"The preceding unsigned comment is by Jane." = awkward

—David Levy 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon you're right. Blackcap (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support this version (preceding/was added) as being neither blunt nor awkward. Feezo (Talk) 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

block log

It'll be helpful if you'll add 'block log' link. Psychomel @di_(s)cussion 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's just a template for people who've forgotten to sign their posts, not a template for vandals. Snoutwood (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it's mostly for anons... nevermind. Psychomel @di_(s)cussion 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

Could the (UTC) be added on as a default so that {{Unsigned|name|09:18, 3 May 2006)}} would produce —Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, but I can't figure out a way to get the (UTC) to show up only when the second parameter is entered. (Since we don't want it showing up when no date is included) Feel free to play with {{User:SCEhardt/temp|name|time}} to try to get it right. -SCEhard T 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like the code works for both with & without time included. All except for the period that comes at the end then= (UTC)}}. But I don't know if that is intentional! So if someone could include this code (since its protected) that would be great! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"dunno how I missed it" Do you mean the absence of (UTC)? Nice job Locke Cole I'm always glad to help but it looks you got their before me. I hope someone will change it soon. Why is the page protected? p.s. Why does the current template has a "." at the end? Could it be removed on the updated one? (c:= -- UKPhoenix79 08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant the period. And I think it should probably stay since the whole thing is a sentence. It's protected because it's a high-risk template (used in a lot of places). A lot of people have been subst'ing it for some reason though, but hopefully they'll stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. In my opinion, this is bad idea. Someone using a time zone offset is likely to type his/her local time. This will result in a false statement, which is worse than ambiguity. Of course, it's common to manually type "(UTC)" (or a declaration of the local time zone), and this change would result in redundancy for non-substituted instances of the template and future misuses that go unnoticed (along with confusing inaccuracy in cases where another time zone abbreviation is used).

2. The template often is substituted because this reduces strain on the servers. As a non-article template, it needn't retain a consistent appearance.

—David Levy 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The only place to get the time for someone that didnt sign is by going to the history... isn't that in UTC? and the only reason that people commonly write in " (UTC)" is because the template dosen't produce it... I know thats why I enter it in. I don't think that its a huge thing that the template has a period at the end. I just find it a weird and in my option an unessacary addition. So if people want to keep it in thats fine. -- UKPhoenix79 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Page histories are displayed in UTC only by default. Anyone who has selected a time zone offset (under "Date and time" in My preferences) sees each revision listed in his/her local time.

I don't see how it's weird to place a period at the end of a sentence, and I disagree that this is unnecessary. —David Levy 17:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you see it as an end os a sentence that makes sense. But I see it as a replacement of the signature (with a preface informing to that effect) and the official signature doesn't have a period at the end. I knew that one could change their time zone but I didn't realize that it would change the time in the history too. I haven't seen anyone enter PST or GMT anywhere using this template, but UTC is always found. I wonder if other users are aware of the difference in the listed times? -- UKPhoenix79 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The default signature lacks a period at the end because it isn't structured as a sentence. This template, conversely, is structured as a sentence. —David Levy 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Using local time for signatures would create too much confusion. If some people are using local time to fill in the unsigned template, the (UTC) at the end should remind them not to. -SCEhard T 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that no one should use his/her local time (aside from UTC) for any purpose on this wiki. If it were up to me, the offset option wouldn't even be enabled. But it is, so we have to deal with it. Someone who uses an alternative time zone for this template is unlikely to appreciate the significance of the "(UTC)" notation, so I doubt that it would serve as any sort of reminder. —David Levy 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

German version

Please add a link to de:Vorlage:Unsigned —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oneiros (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Done. —David Levy 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst code fragment

There's a code fragment {{{2|}}} included when substing with a default empty date parameter. Does this mean a date parameter must be provided to correctly subst this template? Is this how it's supposed to work? Femto 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It wont include the fragment when substing if you leave it as |}} instead of }} however if you leave it as }} it still is invisible for instance "{{{2|}}}" shows as "" Is there anything wrong with laving it on a talk page. I Don't see the problem except a messy page code.--E-Bod 04:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think messy page code is problem enough (personally I'd prefer a cleaner unsubsted inclusion of this template in the first place). What's the use in giving an empty default to a parameter which only works when the parameter is not empty, and that adds superfluous code otherwise? Femto 11:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Easier usage?

Is there any way to make using this easier for tagging unsigned comments, so that I don't have to copy twice the IP/Username and the date/time, such as by having a template that accepts something like "03:16, 27 July 2005 24.147.228.204" as the format, which is a straight copy from the history? -- Centrx 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned2 is a little easier. -- Centrx 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've suggsted an script for this here. So one click in the history added the fulfilled Template. I' think this week an test-version could will be publish. --Olliminatore 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete comment from Template:Unsigned2

In the same way it was deleted from this one, it is unnecessary and gets added to the end of every single usage. —Centrx→talk 03:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been done. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

It is requested that the following edit or modification be made to the protected page: add links for:

blocking the user
activity in the log
their record in the block log. Myrtone 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? It already has contribs, the kind of things you list are only particularly used in {{Vandal}} or {{IPvandal}}. Kevin_b_er 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this useful? I use this template a lot, and every time has been simply a discussant who did not sign their comment, without any indication of vandalism. Note also that if someone makes a vandalistic comment, it would get deleted not signed. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {editprotected}. It seems there is no consensus for such a change. If consensus develops in the future, pop {editprotected} back on this page.--Commander Keane 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Substitution

Whether this template should always be substituted or not is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Template substitution#Unsigned and Unsigned2. Your comment is invited. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The archive of the discussion now appears at Wikipedia talk:Template substitution/Archive 3#Unsigned and Unsigned2.—Goh wz 10:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

usage instructions

Could an administrator please add a template usage message in the <noinclude> section? Thanks. Arbitrary username 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {Editprotected}. There are usage instructions on the talk page, I'm not sure why you would want to clutter the actual template page. However, if you have a discussion here and people agree, reapply the {Editprotected} (also try to agree on the wording, there are many uses of this template and perhaps editing it will invalidate the page caches, I'm not sure about that though).--Commander Keane 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is there any way to use the IPvandal or vandal templates inside this one? For example: {{unsigned|IPvandal|83.669.450.78}}
Or would that just get you something like —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPvandal (talk • contribs) --Koji Dude 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to achieve what you asked, but it seems to me that:

If the comment is worth keeping, it is not vandalism
If the comment is vandalism, it should be deleted

-SCEhard T 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to use it for the IPs that were constantly trolling Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 and making personal attacks on the talk page. It was a serious issue at first, but it seems to have died down a little. I just thought it'd be conveient incase the vandalism starts up again.--Koji Dude 02:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would remove the personal attack (though not the whole comment, if there was any other content). I don't think you should put the vandal template after a comment because that in itself could be taken as a personal attack or at least would not be conducive to creating a calm, rational dialogue. -SCEhard T 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll just stick with the normal template for now. (By the way, the personal attacks aren't really that bad, but enough to be insulting)--Koji Dude 05:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests to add interwiki links

[[fi:Malline:Allekirjoittamaton]]

Added -SCEhard T 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[[kn:ಟೆಂಪ್ಲೇಟು:Unsigned]]

Added. Apparently needs to be translated. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[[be:Шаблён:Няма подпісу]] --Red Winged Duck 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Added -SCEhard T 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[[pt:Predefinição:Não assinou]] --Mosca2 06:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Added -SCEhard T 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[[nl:Sjabloon:Afzender]] - Aleichem 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please post an interwiki link to nl:Sjabloon:Afzender? Qwertyus 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Added -SCEhard T 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis can now be freely added/edited on unprotected page Template:Unsigned/doc. No admin needed for this. --Ligulem 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Time Stamp

This template should also have a time stamp, like we use when we sign our messages. For example: --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work, because the time is the time of the edit that the wikipedian made when he/she forgot to sign it, so this cannot be automated (at least not to my knowledge). You'll have to look up the date & time in the history of the page manually. The template has already a date parameter for this. See the example on the template page how to use that. I've removed {{editprotected}} tag. --Ligulem 13:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Subst

The page where this was discussed (see the link above) came to no conclusion. In any case, substing this template gives no advantage, but does make talk pages harder to edit. I will therefore remove the instructions to subst this template. Zocky | picture popups 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

subst: was removed from the example, but not from the usage. I won't change it myself since there was no clear outcome from the discussion mentioned above (see #Substitution). However, the example and usage need to be consistent: either remove or include subst: in both places - Zyxw 21:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Space before period at end of template

Currently, there's a space before the last period in the template. Can someone with the proper credentials please correct this? jareha ^(comments) 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Levy 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:UNSIGNED

I added a shortcut in WP:UNSIGNED as I could NEVER find this article when I needed it. I'd add the shortcut box to the article, but the page is (of course) locked. JPG-GR 06:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it easier to type [[WP:UNSIGNED]] than {{unsigned}}? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, that cross-namespace redirect is up for discussion at RFD here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Very Confusing

So I want to use { { unsigned } }. This is very confusing. How do I add the person's IP address and time etc? (Yes I know this info exists in the history page). How to fully use this template does not immediately present itself. For a person who has not really delved into the secret world of wikipedia I find this baffling. Why not make things easier for non expert users. Ozdaren 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? It's not possible to easily know who wrote an unsigned message without looked in the history. If it was, we wouldn't need the template. The documentation page is quite clear in how to use the template:{{subst:unsigned|user name(or IP)|date}}, which is otherwise certainly not as complex as, say {{Taxobox}}and uses widespread syntax... Circeus 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

includeonly subst

As a template intended to be subst'ed, the parser functions that this template uses should be <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>. —Random8322007-01-27 04:46 UT C (01/26 23:46 EST)

Wikipedia:Signatures

The guideline WP:SIG (previously Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages) has now been renamed 'Wikipedia:Signatures', and it would make more sense to pipe the link there then to the redirect it's piped to at the moment. Could an admin therefore please change the pipe target of the link in {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} (I've changed the other three, which weren't protected). --ais523 09:55, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

Done (both). Checked {{unsignedIP}}, but see you beat me there. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues

Um, why does the time come out as {{#if:[time], [date] (UTC)| [time], [date] (UTC)|}}? It displays fine, but looks ugly when editing. Isn’t there any way to have it just manifest as [time], [date] (UTC)? Also, I think we should include an HTML comment, reminding people who come back to sign their posts with their own signature that they should only use 3 tildes, and leave the time/date alone. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On [date]?

Is there a reason the date, when supplied, immediately follows the username and links? Would it be possible to add the word "on" between these elements so it makes a little bit more sense? --ElKevbo 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No particular reason, except that when I wrote it, the intent was that the name and date part look just like if they'd actually typed tilde-tilde-squiggle-nnya.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Appreciate the quick reply! --ElKevbo 18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged on the talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Explicit request?

Using {{subst:unsigned|127.0.0.1|22:06, October 2, 2001 (UTC)}} produces:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 127.0.0.1 (talk • contribs) 22:06, October 2, 2001 (UTC).

Using instead {{subst:unsigned-r|22:06, October 2, 2001 (UTC)|127.0.0.1}} results in:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 127.0.0.1 (talk • contribs) 22:06, October 2, 2001 (UTC) - Please sign your posts!

I think the added explicit request with its instructional wikilink would also be an improvement to this template. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are two templates is so that there is the option of using either. Also, many uses of {{unsigned}} are for comments that were made by someone long gone who is not going to return to see the message. —Centrx→talk • 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

switch "name" <-> "date" parameters

In the edit history, the date comes first, then the name (HH:MM, MMM DD, YYYY Name). This is annoying having to cut-and-paste to put into this template. How about the parameters are reversed? Or, better yet, how about MediaWiki auto-implement signing like I've seen some templates do? Sheesh... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I created {{unsigned2}} two days or so after creating {{unsigned}}. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I just saw that post above the one I added--sorry. I made a redirect tho: template:nosigr. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Date format should be ISO 8601

Shouldn't the datformate be YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssZ as specified by the international standard ISO 8601 invoked by nearly the hole world? Nsaa 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Its easy just to copy the date from the History. Heres the format follow this standard. Nsaa 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it make sense to use a format other than the one applied to standard signatures? —David Levy 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad substing

According to Wikipedia:Subst#Templates_that_should_not_be_substituted, templates that user Parser Functions should not be subst'd because that leaves ugly wiki code. Please either revert the last change or correct the documentation to say that this template should not be subst'd. Thank you ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. The whole purpose of the parser function was apparently to prevent a space from showing before a period that isn't necessary anyway, so I removed the period too. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a period at the end of the sentence is any less necessary than the one at the end of this sentence is. If we're removing it, we should remove the sentence structure too (so that's what I've done). —David Levy 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is less necessary than the one at the end of that sentence. That period separates two sentences, whereas there are not two sentences in the template. The last period in this comment, however, can be safely omitted without confusion of sentences; the only reason to keep it, I think, is uniformity —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Inglish kan bee perfektly understandible withowt beeing korrect. —David Levy 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes longer to parse that sentence than it does to parse a sentence that uses common spellings. The periods between sentences ease parsing and understanding, but the reader has already stopped reading by the time he gets to the period at the end of a talk page comment. Most people would not even notice whether there is or is not a period at the end of the unsigned template, and it does not affect their comprehension of the message. If you want to encourage proper use of punctuation, get the people at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) to agree to put punctuation at the end of items on disambiguation pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm able to parse the sentence in question as easily as I can parse its properly spelled equivalent. My point is that it isn't unreasonable to seek correctness purely for the sake of being correct. This is the English Wikipedia, so proper English is a good thing.

2. It's grammatically correct to omit full stops from bulleted list items. —David Levy 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove "unsigned" from template

I propose that the message "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." be replaced by "Preceding comment added by..." I think that saying that the comment was unsigned is accusatory and unnecessary, since the comment is now signed. Please share your opinion. --24fan24 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm...where would the Wikipedia:Signatures link go? The one that explains how to sign and that you actually have to sign ∴ AlexSm 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that link really necessary? If we want to ask users to sign their comments they should be asked on their talk page with {{tilde}}, not expected to click on a link. --24fan24 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned templates are also used with anonymous users. They may not even know to look at their talk pages. Newly registered users may not always sign in, and so they will not see the talk page message alert. The unsigned templates are used on old unsigned comments, too. The bot does not add the unsigned template in those cases. People do that manually. And people would have to manually add the {{tilde}} to talk pages. That is asking too much of people. I do not like having to add the unsigned template, and don't want the additional task of adding {{tilde}} to talk pages. I sometimes add the unsigned template to old comments in order to clarify old discussion. I am really glad a bot signs for unsigned comments nowadays. But the bot does not always operate correctly, and so people need to be reminded to sign their comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the unsigned does a good job of indicating that not signing comments is a faux pas. Plus, if the template non longer says unsigned, new users may think that having the signature bot clean up after them is standard procedure. -SCEhard T 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

the example for User12 is broken

On the documentation section, the example for {{User12}}. I digged a bit, and found that {{Signatures}} is simply calling the template, so there is must be a problem with either the template itself or with how it handles the HTML tags that are fed to him on the example. Looking at the documentation section of User12, I don't see any example that looks at all like the example here

It's not vandalism because the example was added on 11 March 2007 by a user that was making several improvements [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. [4]--Patrick (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

iw to af

Please add af:Sjabloon:Ongetekend. --Eivind (t) 11:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Eivind (t) 21:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

small with class

(The section above is too long, so I'm starting a new one).

Okay, we went from  to  then back to  and now to . Since no one seemed to notice my previous question, I'll ask it again: why don't you simply use  ? —AlexSm 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Another comment: class="autosigned" is not a very good choice, as new users might think it's okay not to sign. Please change it to class="unsigned" which is better in all respects. —AlexSm 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to go through and change them all; I don't think the name of the class matter very much, but I'm not going to revert anyone who renames the class or puts it onto the small tag. But it would be nice if the templates get into sync again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the functional parts of this template to the Greek wikipedia

It's only a part of this template (without explanations) I just copied the source, and modified it to the Greek language on the Greek wikipedia. If anyone can/wants add a link to it. I've not changed the name of the template yet or discussed it anywhere. Logictheo (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Another template is needed

We should have an unsigned template for the instances where someone signs with their real name only. It's not accurate to use any of the existing unsigned templates in such cases. __meco (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what {{unsigned2}} is for. Look at the page history to find out who and when and paste into the template {{subst:unsigned2|11:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)|Meco}} produces —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meco (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) -199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the functional parts of this template to the Polish Wikipedia

I couldn't add an interwiki link here because:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option: Template:Unsigned

Please, add: PL:Szablon:Bezpodpisu2.

—6birc (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Amalthea 07:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Text too small

Unresolved

Please remove the  tag pair from this template. The text is unreadable (and I've just used it on Wikipedia talk:Accessibility!). As to earlier discussion on this page, two years ago; if the intention is to make the text "stand out from the rest of the discussion", use emphasis ('') or emboldening ('''); that's what they're for; as to "raise the minimum font size in your browser settings", users already have the text in their browser set to their preferred size, it's not for us to override that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 11:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd do this, but I want a few opinions first. I agree with this edit, but others may not. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case:

1. We should not use bold for emphasis (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)), but could use italics.

2. It might be preferable to simply fix the text-size that  specifies, so that all its usages within Wikipedia are improved. If we can't read it here, we can't read it anywhere...

Related current-discussions to note: Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Text size and MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Font sizes. There's also the #Why Small? thread near the top of this page. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the small tag. If we want to change the formatting, it would be better to wrap the whole thing in a span and style that with CSS. But I don't see any need for that, plain text is fine for a signature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe it would be and I'm just crustily holding on to, "the way things was." But I must say that I *preferred* the small text. Mainly because it isn't just a signature. *—Preceding unsigned comment added by some text (talk • contribs) some date* <- Much longer than the typical signature. Just one editor's opinion, but I doubt I'm the only one. LaughingVulcan 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

←Small text is an accessibility barrier for some people. A shorter verison might replace:

Preceding unsigned comment added by

with

Autosigned for

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What if I wrap all the unsigned-foo templates in a span with class="autosigned"? Then users can style them in any desired way. The real problem with small is that the only way to style it is to change the style of all small tags. With a custom CSS class, signatures can be styled independently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, so long as the default for editors who do not set a preference is not to reduce the text size. Please remember to update Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes, too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not a fan of the -lacking template now. IMO, it looks slightly uglier and more obtrusive – it looked pretty neat as it was. If we're looking for a size in between normal and small, why not use a span with the CSS property font-size property set to a percentage, say 90%?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs)

is equivalent to 80%, I believe. haz (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That would take us back to the state where the small size can't be overridden by CSS. later today, I'll add the span tag, unless someone objects to it. ~~I'll also add a corresponding small rule to Common.css,~~ which will return everything to the previous appearance but with the proper underpinnings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I object. As I said above "That's fine, so long as the default for editors who do not set a preference is not to reduce the text size". This is an accessibility issue; and accessibility concerns override (or should, at least) aesthetic preferences. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main goals are:

The default should reflect the style most people would prefer
It should be easy for those who prefer a different style to change it.

The point of the span is to address the second bullet. The reason I proposed to set the size to small by default is for the first bullet. users who prefer larger font sizes will, overall, be familiar with using CSS to restyle things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The first point should be "that people can read"; the personal tastes of the well-sighted majority is of lesser importance. Let those who dislike the accessible version change the visual design; not those who need it to be accessible. I find your closing assertion without foundation (and certainly without evidence). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the size issue (beyond expressing my agreement that accessibility is the most important consideration), I oppose the suggested change from "Preceding unsigned comment added by" to "Autosigned for". In addition to providing attribution, the tag is supposed to inform users that they're expected to sign their posts. The latter text could be interpreted to mean that it's normal to instead rely on the "autosigning" feature. —David Levy 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You point is a good one. I was trying to find something that was both shorter, and less hectoring. perhaps:

Signed for xxx (Please sign your posts)

would be agreeable?

I am going to add a span to the templates, with class "autosigned", but pending discussion I am not going to change Common.css. I am also not going to change the text used. Just adding a CSS class. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree that there is any accessibility issue here. My browser (and I think all other major ones,) have a nice feature that the size of all text on any page is dynamically resizable. In mine, I hold down Control and move the scroll wheel, and all text gets bigger, or smaller. I use that function fairly regularly, when there is text too small for me to read. Windows contains a magnifier function. Because those with problems reading small text already have tools which change text size, there is no accessibility issue to Wikipedia about this, IMVHO. It has a flavor of feel-good political correctness which accomplishes no true purpose, to me. But if you're dead set on doing it, well, fine. I just will continue to dislike it intensely, and feels it detracts from Talk and Project pages without sufficient cause. However, I wonder if any RfC has been opened on the subject? LaughingVulcan 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction to above. I found the link above to the Accessibility project space. I still disagree intensely with the notion that a person with vision issues can't resize things themselves, but see where the discussion home for the above comments would be. (And thank you to whomever posted those Wikilinks!) LaughingVulcan 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the regular sized version really more accessible? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

“Small text is an accessibility barrier for some people”—Mr Mabbett, please back that up with some citations. I've expounded at more length and cited a few guidelines at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Proposed increase, but the gist is that accessibility guidelines do not recommend minimum text sizes or larger text sizes. Anyone who needs to can resize the text in their browser or read it in their screen reader. Of course of Wikipedia's millions of readers, some will always complain that some text is too small—if you propose enlarging text because it's too small for you, you are in effect imposing your personal preference on the project. —Michael Z. 2008-09-11 04:49 z

Oh, come off it. This is a talk page, not an article: you are free to express opinions on a talk page, and you don't need to provide citations for those! Now, I personally preferred the small text size in this template, as it was less obtrusive; however, the point about accessibility is a valid one. --RFBailey (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[rewrote more clearly] If it looks better in someone's opinion then of course they are free to say so.

But accessibility is a measurable quality. There are a number of accessibility guidelines and none of them says that small text is an accessibility barrier, none of them recommends setting minimum text sizes, or against using small fonts. Andy Mabbett's argument is based on a factual statement, which happens to be incorrect. I don't think it's fair to invoke accessibility, a technical subject which most editors aren't familiar with, a subject concerned with the rights of disabled people, when the fact is that accessibility is not affected by this. —Michael Z. 2008-09-11 21:45 z

Are you claiming that the statement that "Small text is an accessibility barrier for some people" is factually incorrect? If I understand you correctly, then that is what you are saying. In which case, then you are clearly mistaken. Of course it is the case that certain people with limited vision (depending exactly on what particular impairment they have) find small text difficult to read; why do you think large print books are produced? Now, if it happens that the standard text size on Wikipedia is OK to read (possibly after adjusting browser settings globally), but that is not, then that is clearly a barrier to accessibility. Now, of course that person could adjust their browser settings so that everything appears in a bigger size, then that might be a problem, causing the rest of the page not to fit on the screen any more, or just being too big.

As it happens, I do have experience of dealing with people with visual impairments, so this technical subject is one that I'm familiar with to a certain extent. --RFBailey (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who can't see stuff in tags, they are able to use any number of the accessibility functions in almost any mainstream browser released within the last decade. If they don't, they'll have a lot more problems with 90% of the sites on the internet, god knows how many templates on this site, and my and plenty others' signature(s). Most obviously, the default font size of the top tabs, the left menu, and a few other things is the same size. So, {{unsigned}} is the least of their concerns when it comes to navigating the site :P.

Moreover, making what is essentially maintenance text the same size as regular text presents another problematic accessibility issue: whether normal people are more or less easily able to either focus on or graze past the text that is or is not important in context. If you're looking for accessibility battles, though, a more valid one, in my opinion, is article size. There's lots to be done there. Thus I oppose making the text size larger. --slakr^\ talk / 23:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RFBailey, there are two issues here: design for readability, and accessibility.

Any well-designed book or other document you pick up or read online is likely to have a visual hierarchy of text elements. Typically this includes a range of elements less important than the main body text: footnotes or endnotes and their references, copyright notices, page numbers, chapter names in the top or bottom margin, publication notes, and even some subheadings. They are often smaller than comfortably readable body copy. If a reader is interested in their content, they can deal with them once by moving the book closer for a moment, holding it closer to the light, or adjusting their eyeglasses. 90% of the time, they merely need to identify these elements. Similarly, the reader of a website can lean towards their monitor for a second, adjust their browser zoom, adjust their screen magnifier, or whatever. If all of these elements were restricted to the same size as the body copy, then overall readability would suffer due to visual clutter, and the document would resemble a baby book.

If block quotations appear often enough and we judge them to be routinely difficult to read in Wikipedia, then maybe we should up their size by the equivalent of a pixel or two. But no one needs the full text of “Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Schmoe (talk • contribs)” to appear at full body-copy size a dozen or more times on a single page. If a single CSS step smaller is too small for you to resolve in your web browser's default display at all, then you probably should adjust the default size.

Accessibility is a different issue. Anyone whose access to web pages is limited by serious vision problems does not need {{unsigned}} to be rendered at 1 or 2 pixels taller. The recommendations in the accessibility guidelines that I know of bear this out. If you are skeptical, please review my citations at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Proposed increase. —Michael Z. 2008-09-13 01:48 z

I have already stated that my personal preference was to keep the {{unsigned}} template text in the size; I think it was better that way as it was unobtrusive. What I was objecting to was your use of invalid arguments in the discussion: requesting "citations" for someone's opinion, and claiming that a perfectly valid, logical remark is "a factual statement, which happens to be incorrect". Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's wrong. --RFBailey (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about whether smaller text is an accessibility problem. If it is, it's also used in many places in article space, for example footnotes, so that needs looking at too.

That aside, if it's decided to leave the Unsigned templates in a larger font, I'd prefer the message to be shortened as suggested above (to "Autosigned for XXX" or whatever). That way it'll be less obtrusive and not clutter the page up so much. (Even in a small font, the current version is a bit long anyway in my opinion.)

The majority of users either do not log in, or even if they do, they don't set any preferences, so I don't think using a CSS class and leaving it to users is a good solution. Most people following the discussion won't benefit from that at all. JRawle (Talk) 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea: one way to distinguish autosigned posts without using font size, colour or emphasis would be to put it all in parenthesis. (Autosigned for Example • talk) I guess using square brackets could cause issues, so stick to standard ones. JRawle (Talk) 14:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with some editors above. The raised issue is doubtful: the same small text is used in many other places in Wikipedia, so why "fix" the unsigned template? Implemented solution (class="autosigned") will be used by so few users that it doesn't justify much more complex wikicode. —AlexSm 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How's that? I don't have any preference whether the default size is small or not, but I think it makes perfect sense that the size should be configurable by CSS. It looks to me like the bulk of comments here are in support of the small font size being the default - am I reading consensus correctly? Let me know; I'll fix all the unsigned templates to use the small size if that's the outcome with the most support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state a preference initially, but yes, I agree with making the unsigned-text smaller than the standard text, and using a css-class to achieve that (rather than a raw tagpair).

It's the rendered size of the smaller text (which is currently being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Font sizes by people who understand cross-browser consistency better than we) that is under legitimate/subjective dispute (and this isn't the talkpage to hash that out on). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CBM: I'm not saying that the CSS class is completely useless, it's just that it won't be used much (especially since it was never added to template documentation). And users that have a problem with small text should look for more universal solutions, like setting minimal allowed font size in Firefox. One other note: class="autosigned" might give a wrong impression that it's okay not to sign. And one question: couldn't we use simpler  ? —AlexSm 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume anyone who wants to know the CSS class will just look at the source code of the template. At least, that's what I always do. As I keep pointing out, the point of making a separate class is to allow these to be formatted differently than other small text. For example, you could make them grey instead of black. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an "ordinary" editor of Wikipedia, I've just used the unsigned2 template and was surprised to see it in normal size characters. In my opinion, the small characters helped the unsigned notice to stand out. At the moment there is nothing to do this: it looks like it is part of the original text. In addition, the current unsigned2 template does not match its documentation which still says that the text will appear in small characters. Please could those involved in this discussion revert the templates to their previous consistent status until a consensus has been formed on any changes - which should then be consistently applied to both templates and documentation. Regards. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The others should now match {{unsigned}}. -SCEhard T 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My preference for the small size is for aesthetic reasons. As I understand that accessibility is a legitimate issue, brackets or parentheses seem to be a decent compromise. [Preceding comment signed by 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC).]

This still needs fixing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK fixed, lets try it like this,. We could remove the "contribs" link too, if "obtrusiveness" is a problem, or just to KISS. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I really didn't see a problem with how it was before, and consensus in this very old and stale discussion does not seem to support the change. I've reverted for now. That being said, if consensus develops for the new "unsigned" look, then "unsigned2" should also be changed to match. –xeno^talk 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, {{unsigned2}} now wraps {{unsigned}}, so that's no longer needed. Amalthea 14:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Created {{Unsigned/sandbox}} and {{Unsigned/testcases}}. Also changed style per above and added handling of less than two parameters. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

With respect, I've reverted your bold change. The very old discussion from 2008 doesn't appear to have consensus. –xeno^talk 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Amlathea for fixing up the subst version, nonetheless. Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

Seamless version

(Originally sugested here) I think it might be useful to have a version of this template that simply emulates the actual signature of the editor, for when they genuinely forgot to sign (rather than didn't know they had to). I know this can be added by hand and a template wouldn't provide much more convenience in that case; but for the bot, I think it would be useful, for example for users above a certain threshold of edits, or users that opt-in (with a userbox, template or category). That would make the message less aggressive (it is not as harsh as --citing Rich Farmbrough above-- "Fred Bloggs forgot to sign this, what a N00B.", but it's quite similar in the message it conveys, though in a more polite manner). What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 07:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're just talking about a version: {{Signing}}/{{Signing2}} (needs doc).
I was thinking about removing the finger-slapping sentence from this template altogether, but I don't know if the notice SineBot will eventually leave on an editor's talk page is enough. Amalthea 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the notice is not left more than once for the same user. If they are new and often forget to sign, having the bot add a seamless signature might even go unnoticed by them and thus prevent them from creating the mental habit of adding the four tildes. What we can maybe do is reduce the threshold for starting to use the seamless version (you mentioned it is currently around 800 edits). Btw, nice touch with the parameter reversal in {{Signing2}}. I'll bookmark that one, as I often sign posts in old discussion pages I happen to visit, and having to mess around with the copied text has always annoyed me a little :) --Waldir ^talk 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Sinebot is that smart. Or rather, I think SineBot is more persistent than that.
Concerning parameter reversal, credit goes to whoever created {{Unsigned2}}. But if you like that, here's a script that adds hidden " (UTC)|" texts into a displayed history page, so that you can just copy and paste it and wrap it with the template call, and no messing around with it at all: User:Amalthea/History hidden UTC.js. Not originally my idea either. Amalthea 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the script link! Back on topic, considering my concerns , what would you suggest we do, then? --Waldir ^talk 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For changes to SineBot you'll have to talk to Slakr. Using {{Signing}} for users who opted in sounds good to me.
And as far as changing this template goes, we'd need additional opinions. Amalthea 10:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why substitute?

Why should this template be substituted? Formatting changes are discussed and implemented from time to time; substituting unnecessarily prevents application of consensus format changes to prior uses of the template. I understand substituting warning templates, because the wording of a warning message may change: the wording, and therefore possibly the meaning, of a warning left on a user's Talk page should not change after the warning is left. But why substitute this one, which is purely housekeeping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finell (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: Using the template instead of my signature is a wan attempt at irony.

In theory, template substitution reduces server load. When a template is as commonly used as this one is, the benefit can be non-trivial.

We've been advised not to concern ourselves with this issue when doing so interferes with our normal practices, but that isn't occurring here. (The template isn't used in articles, so why does it matter if older uses contain different formatting?) —David Levy 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Server load is certainly a letigimate concern. Does the use of templates cause more server load than redirects? —Finell (Talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I suggest asking a developer. —David Levy 01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Finell (Talk) 07:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Second point, talk pages should be "in aspic". Therefore if the Unsigned template is changed to "Fred Bloggs forgot to sign this, what a N00B." that should only be shown on new uses of the template. An extreme example, but makes the point I hope. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I agree with Rich F. Talk pages should not be changed retrospectively, and failure to subst this template would lead to changes in thousands of talk pages whenever the template was updated. That also carries a server load issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The incremental server load of template presentment is trivial even for highly-used templates like this one. Mindless substitution (especially via SmackBot), on the other hand, adds a needless record to the database and clogs the edit view of the page with complex wikicode. Established users know how to ignore that junk but it's intimidating to new users. The antivandalism suggestion has merit but only in a minor way. This template is heavily policed. Any vandalism will be immediately reverted. To BrownHairedGirl's point, the updating of the template puts zero incremental load on the server since the template does nothing until a page is displayed. Rossami (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. An edit to a template will queue re-rendering of all pages transcluding that template into the job queue, to write updated transclusion, categorization and link relations into the database. Also, try purging the "Barack Obama" article, wait half a minute until it's done rendering, and let's then talk about "trivial" server load from template rendering. Amalthea 09:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Small class

I'll note above that there's a question about the need for the span and the small. Is there anyone that would object to moving the class into the small element and removing the span? --Izno (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be if there's a better place to ask it, as I note there's a family of unsigned templates. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't object in principle to merging some of the HTML, but the changes earlier today created broken output, so I reverted them. If anyone wants to try this again, please can they do some testing in a sandbox? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support throwing out all the display cruft in favour of plain unspanned, unsmalled text. Small is generally not particularly accessible. The brackets set the text off sufficiently from the post. Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Question

Is there any reason that this template calls for data in the order Name and then Date, rather than Date and then Name as the information appears on a page history? I find it annoying to cut and paste the info from the history page and then have move the name over. Was there a purpose in the current order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's more natural, and it's the order they appear on the talk page.
But you're certainly not alone, which is why there is {{unsigned2}} that reverses the parameters. :)
Amalthea 09:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallalujah! Thanks for that, I had no idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's only that way because I wrote it that way in the first place -- it didn't occur to me until the next day or so that it was annoyingly backwards, but by then it was already in use by others. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely User:SineBot catches most stuff? Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

SineBot doesn't operate on editors with over 800 edits. –xeno^talk 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You can also use the {{xsign}} wrapper which eliminates the need to swap or enter a pipe character. –xeno^talk 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Even better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Substituted

Please readd {{substituted}} directly onto the template page (which is what {{substituted}} is meant to do) within the noinclude tags. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 03:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending consensus for this, I've restored both {{notice|This template should normally be substituted.}} and {{substituted}} to the doc page. We do not want to suggest that transclusion of this template is thre recommended usage. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unsigned8

Template:Unsigned8 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

I thought the central talk page of this template should be notified of this cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Banaticus, 22 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is part of a double edit request. This page should include an extra unnamed parameter that would allow a user to be listed as a modified username. For instance, User:SPLATCO who prefers to be linked like $plat or User:Chzz who prefers to be linked like Chzz ► . The edit would look like this:

— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}} </noinclude>

to

— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{#if:{{{3}}}{{!}}{{{3}}}{{!}}{{{1}}} }}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}} </noinclude>

The other half of this two-part edit request can be found at Template talk:Unsigned2#Edit request from Banaticus, 22 April 2011. Banaticus (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? If an experienced user (as evident by a customized sig) forgets to sign and you want to do it for them with their proper signature code, why don't you just leave that without the template? The finger-slap from it shouldn't be necessary anyway. Amalthea 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

Not done; editors who want their fancy sigs should remember to sign their posts. This is a failsafe, and prettying it up would simply encourage people to leave it up to SineBot to do their signing for them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Space after em-dash?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've noticed that this {{unsigned}} template inserts a space after the em-dash where as the other {{unsignedIP}} template does not. Compare:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.0.0 (talk)

I have no strong opinion on whether this space should be included or not, but I do think the style should be consistent. Why do the two templates differ? —Cheng ✍ 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a stupendously minor change, but for consistency with the other Unsigned templates, one of two changes needs to be made:

The space between the em-dash and the word "Preceeding" should be removed in both this template and {{Unsigned2}}.

- or -

Unsigned and Unsigned2 can be changed to a non-breaking space ( ), and a non-breaking space can be added to all the other Unsigned templates (see the bottom section of the table here).

In my opinion, the latter is the better choice, but it's more work and others may prefer the lack of space. I'll leave it to the changing Admin to decide.

For reference, the space was introduced as a bold change in this edit, and a parallel change was made to Unsigned2—but not any of the other Unsigned templates—at the same time. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies for any Unsigned2 confusion...I must've been looking at a second copy of the Unsigned history accidentally. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Spacing in the template

Is it just me? I tried copying and pasting the "{{ subst:unsigned | user name or IP | time, day month year (UTC) }}" and ran into a bit of difficulty because of the space preceding the user name or IP. Specifically, the auto-generated link to the IP editor's contributions didn't work. If this were open to editing, I'd change it to "{{subst:unsigned |user name or IP |time, day month year (UTC)}}" I don't think that sacrifices much in the way of readability. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just you. That's the way unnamed parameters work for historical reasons. I'd definitely suggest it be changed to avoid confusion. – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The only place in the existing template where the presence or absence of leading spaces is critical is the link to Special:Contributions. Trailing spaces are not a problem anywhere. The relevant section of the present code reads:

[[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]

Having played about with the sandbox, I've found that we need to use the {{subst:trim}} template, i.e.

[[Special:Contributions/{{{{{|subst:}}}trim|{{{1}}}}}|contribs]]

this producing the "cleanest" result compared to {{trim}}, {{strip whitespace}} or {{subst:strip whitespace}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

UTC time in template documentation

The documentation about how to use the template explains how to figure out and type in the time in UTC, but wouldn't it be much easier for people using this template to use five tildes to set the time in UTC? And if yes, shall we update the documentation to say that? For example, the usage part of the documentation says to do this:
{{subst:unsigned | user name or IP | time, day month year (UTC)}}
but I'm suggesting that it be changed to this:
{{subst:unsigned | user name or IP | ~~~~~}}
As a demonstration, I'm going to sign this post that way: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudwater (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, never mind. The documentation should stay the way it is, because, of course, using five tildes would post the time that the Unsigned template was added to the talk page, but what we want is the time that the actual post was added. (Nothing to see here. Move along.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

capitalization for user name or IP

I edited the doc because I thought case mattered for entries for the "user name or IP" parameter, but now I'm not sure, since I went back and checked the problem instance character-for-character and found a different problem. The doc edit results in proper performance by the template, but if it was okay before (i.e., case-insensitivity applied) and the doc is now too restrictive of editors and should be reverted, go ahead or tell me and I can do it. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Add UTC to timestamp

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This will make the template add (UTC) if the person using the template does not include it, for some reason.

Please replace the template with the following text:

<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#invoke:Unsigned|main|{{{2|}}}}}</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --><noinclude>
{{documentation}} <!-- add categories and interwiki links to the /doc page, not here --></noinclude>

Tests are located at Special:Permalink/585039805. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that if an editor puts in a time which isn't UTC (for example they have the gadget enabled which converts times to their local time)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

According to the documentation, you shouldn't even be doing that. I expect it is common for an editor who is using any of the several {{unsigned}} templates --there is a list on that page-- to forget to include the "(UTC)" text because the "(UTC)" is not included on the history page (which is likely to be the source for a cut & paste). →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the list of {{unsigned}} templates, if this request goes through, all of them must have this update applied. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 02:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled the {{edit protected}} template, which is used to request "edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus".

The addition of "(UTC)" was proposed in 2006 and rejected for the reason mentioned by Callanecc. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note that I participated in the discussion.) Consensus can change, but please wait until it does before re-enabling the {{edit protected}} template to flag down an uninvolved administrator.

I'll quote one of my 2006 messages:

I'm of the opinion that no one should use his/her local time (aside from UTC) for any purpose on this wiki. If it were up to me, the offset option wouldn't even be enabled. But it is, so we have to deal with it. Someone who uses an alternative time zone for this template is unlikely to appreciate the significance of the "(UTC)" notation, so I doubt that it would serve as any sort of reminder.

—David Levy 04:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Until now, I was not aware that this idea had been shot down before.

But, I would like to note that even when the offset is enabled, five tildes will return a standard timestamp in UTC. People who enable the offset may be able to read their watchlist or a page's history according to their local time and preferred format, but they must deal in the standard format in UTC on talk pages. Perhaps a more sophisticated way of converting the second parameter into the standard timestamp could be added to the template, so that editors can copy and paste the stamp from the page history. Would this information make this request more reasonable? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 03:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How would time zone offsets be reversed? —David Levy 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose that is a barrier to this idea. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2014

This edit request to Template:Unsigned has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please copy all code from {{Unsigned/sandbox}} into live {{Unsigned}}.

Changed: use {{middot}} as separator, as similar templates do.

Also consider change protection into TE.

DePiep (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It would not subst: cleanly. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64. How so? (strange that I even have to ask). -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A template that is intended to be substituted should not leave unsubstituted templates (or parser functions) in the resulting wikimarkup; that is, the substitution should propagate right through to all subtemplates. The {{subst:unsigned}} template is intended to always be substituted; indeed, there is a bot that looks for unsubstituted uses, and substitutes them. Your proposal would have left an unexpanded {{middot}}.

Even if it were substed right through, the resulting wiki markup would be " · " which is 58 bytes, in comparison to " • " which is five bytes (the bullet (•) is a three-byte character in UTF-8), and I don't think that adding 53 bytes to the markup clutter in an edit window is useful.

Finally: what is the advantage to be gained if "text · text" is used instead of "text • text"? The dot is slightly smaller, but to me that's just aesthetics. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

re Redrose64. OK, clear for me. Thanks for explaining. Well, I'll re-propose with literal code then (using > · < in the sandbox).

The bit count is irrelevant. No editor is supposed to be concerned over performance (including a page size delta of 58 ~~bit~~ bytes). It could be an optimalisation issue, say in high volume usage or code quality, but still then it is not a blocking reason. mw will come to us when it is.

Reason for this change is to bring consistency in the list of Userspace linking templates table: format with middot everywhere. Most or all formatting is "just aesthetics" :-). -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64 mentioned "clutter in an edit window", not MediaWiki performance issues.

Regarding consistency, an alternative is to edit the other templates to match this one. —David Levy 21:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: Redrose said 58 bytes. Had Redrose replied, I could start a talk on whether a complete & correct span tag is "clutter". For you DL, less so. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "less so" is intended to reference. I do know that you aren't approaching this discussion in a manner conducive to collegiality. —David Levy 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't reply yesterday because I was down the pub (and RF gave me a glass of cider which reacted strangely with the several pints of beer I'd already had; I woke up at home, but I don't recall how I got here). Anyway, edit window clutter is one of the reasons why we ask users to restrict their sigs to 255 characters of code, and since {{subst:unsigned|Example|16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)}} already emits 266 characters, I don't see why it should set a worse example than it presently does. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64 Wow, that Oxford meeting! If a bomb had fallen, enwiki would been halved (Earthworm like effect). As the Michelin guide says: vaut le voyage, and thanks for the link (ps cider by RF? next time ask me for advice). More substance later. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I performed the edit before seeing the above response. I've self-reverted.

This illustrates why lowering the protection level to TE might not be prudent (particularly given the infrequency of edits and the extent to which the template is substituted). This isn't the first time that objections have arisen regarding changes to the template that others regarded as uncontroversial. —David Levy 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Two snubs, and zero clarification. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain to admin David Levy: a TE protection would not have saved us from your stupid edit that needed reversion. After all, it was an admin not a TE that performed the edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "snubs" you've referred to above or why you've deemed my edit (which you requested) "stupid". —David Levy 00:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Then let me spell it out for you. You are the admin that did not understand or oversee an edit. Then you concluded that TE is a bad idea. (now the third letter in the alphabet is 'C'). -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no need for incivility.

Secondly, I didn't conclude that reducing the protection level to TE is inadvisable because of what occurred. I intended to note "the infrequency of edits and the extent to which the template is substituted", regardless.

Thirdly, I don't know why you're claiming that I "did not understand or oversee an edit." I didn't blindly copy over the code from the sandbox. Having examined the change and found it to be acceptable, I erred in carrying out the request before allowing sufficient time for others to comment. (Actually, Redrose64 objected before I saved the edit, but I didn't notice until I returned to the talk page to post my reply to you.)

If you thought that I was blaming you or denigrating template editors in general, you misunderstood. The mistake was mine, but it illustrates the benefit of advance discussion of seemingly uncontroversial changes (which is less likely to occur if the full protection is removed). —David Levy 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: not a TE fault. I don't say it is because you are an admin, I say it is that you are an admin that made it happen. You abuse my TE note. The rest of your talk is common editors thing. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: I'm not attributing the aforementioned occurrence to a "TE fault". It was my mistake. I erred in fulfilling the edit request before allowing discussion to occur. My point is that if the protection level had been set to TE, the topic wouldn't even have been raised beforehand.

When a substituted template is widely used (and this one is at or near the top of the list), even a brief change can have significant consequences (and as noted above, modifications to this template have been mistakenly regarded as uncontroversial in multiple instances), so advance discussion is prudent.

To what "abuse" are you referring? —David Levy 21:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Circular. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't wish to provide a substantive reply, that's your prerogative. But I'm unable to address your concerns if you don't express them clearly. —David Levy 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

David Levy. My 00:01, 00:38 edits (and my 20:51 recap) should explain my point. I don't think it helpful to add more. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted - not knowing it should be, I just transcluded a whole bunch, and it would be nice if the bots knew to substitute it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I notice that you added the cat immediately below an instruction "add categories to the /doc page, not here" - why was the doc page not suitable for this cat? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Redrose64: Realizing I was mistaken on this, I ask a template editor to revert. I can make the change on the documentation page, which is the correct way to do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy:

Done reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Note that the bot won't start substituting templates that have over 100 transclusions without an additional confirmation step. Anomie ⚔ 12:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: If you wish to discuss whether these templates should be automatically substituted, continue discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Create an autounsigned template?

Minecraft Wiki has an {{autoUnsigned}} template, which works like unsigned except it automatically adds the username and time stamp from the last revision of the page. See this page for details.

Would adding this template into Wikipedia be a good choice? For example, pages like Talk:Thoroughfare has only one revision (unsigned comment) and adding this template would make signing comments such as these easier. -Sonicwave ^talk 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the code, verbatim:

<includeonly>{{{{{|safesubst:}}}{{
{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq: {{{date|}}} | 1 
  |undated
  |unsigned
}}
|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}REVISIONUSER: {{{{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME}}}}
|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#switch: {{{date|}}}
  |1=1
  |0=3
  |2
}}={{{{{|safesubst:}}}#timel:G:i, d F Y|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}REVISIONTIMESTAMP: {{{{{|safesubst:}}}FULLPAGENAME}} }}}}
}} <!-- Template:AutoUnsigned --></includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}
<!-- Put categories/interwiki on the documentation page --></noinclude>

It could work here, provided that certain modifications are made - such as the elimination of the newline at the end of the line that contains the first FULLPAGENAME, and the use of the time format "H:i, j F Y (e)" instead of "G:i, d F Y" - because we zero-pad hours but we don't zero pad days. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor deliberately removing signature?

Should this template be used when someone deliberately removes their signature? Just curious to see what others think. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would simply restore the signature in the same form that it was prior to removal. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Some kind of bug

I just signed an old post and the contributions page is producing this URL:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/%EF%BB%BFRians45

The correct URL:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rians45

Anyone know why this is happening? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: %EF%BB%BF is the percent-encoded form of the Unicode character U+FEFF, which is the byte order mark. I suspect that you used your mouse to mark the user name in something like the page history, copied it from there and pasted it into {{unsigned}}. If in marking the text, you take a little bit too much, this can sometimes pick up invisible control characters - U+200E (the left-to-right mark) is the most common of these. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: How do I get rid of them? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Like this. What I did was to put the cursor just before the "R" of the first "Rians45", and used the left and right arrow keys to discover the exact position of the invisible character. Then I deleted it, and did the same for the other three instances. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to change order of parameters

I realize this template has been in use since 2005‎, however I find that the 2 parameters in:

[subst:Unsigned|user name|time, day month year (UTC)]

are in the wrong order. It would be much easier for editors to use this template if the user name came after the day month year (the order they appear in diffs) Ottawahitech (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: instead of {{subst:Unsigned}}, use {{subst:Unsigned2}}. Similarly, instead of {{subst:UnsignedIP}}, use {{subst:UnsignedIP2}} --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64. I tried to add Unsigned2 to the see also section but I cannot - maybe it is fully protected?. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC))please ping me

Doc pages are rarely protected, and this one isn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity of "preceeding"

I believe that the wording should be changed, as the phrase has a dangling participle and it is ambiguous what is preceding: the comment, or the signature. Evidently the actual meaning is the comment, but it could be wrongfully misinterpreted that the phrase is indicating that there is another comment, following the signature. This could be dealt with by adding 'the' to the phrase.

Original:- Preceding unsigned comment added by Example ...
Suggested:- The preceding unsigned comment added by Example... ('the' added)
- Alternative suggestion: - Example ... this signature follows an unsigned comment

Thanks in advance, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As this has not been negated, I may boldly forward this proposal (by Template:Edit template-protected) to an admin, if still appropriate in the next few days or by the time I come to do so. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

This edit request to Template:Unsigned has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To ensure uniform appearance across different browsers and platforms and compliance with MOS:FONTSIZE (Firefox 46 on Windows 10 renders ... much smaller than 85% for me), I propose changing ... to {{small|1=...}}. I have implemented the change in the template's sandbox. Here's a demonstration:

Before:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobar (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

After:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobar (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

(This won't affect existing signatures as the template is substituted, but it's still better to ensure uniformity in the future, I guess. Someone could run over existing talk pages with a bot or AWB if really needed.)

nyuszika7h (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We should probably change the rendering of  in MediaWiki:Common.css, as my read of the HTML 5 specification indicates that  is indeed the correct tag for use in this situation. {{small}} may need to use it as well.... --Izno (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And from what I recall, there's a gadget or user script lying around for accessibility purposes which resizes  to a larger % of text.... not so with  and an inline CSS declaration. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, at "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference lists" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets; review CSS at MediaWiki:Gadget-NoSmallFonts.css. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea, I haven't thought of that. {{small}} actually uses  so we would just need to remove the font size declaration once it's added to common.css. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Deactivating request since it's better to solve it as Izno said. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

— Preceding should be changed to ―Preceding (quotation dash [aka horizontal dash] intead of em dash and no space after the dash).
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done:. Most of the templates in the Unsigned templates box at the TOP of the doc page begin this way, so you will need more input and a consensus to change them all. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Invisible characters

It's known that copying and pasting the date from the revision history page also leaves behind a U+200e character in the timestamp, which has been known to break automated archiving. Given this, would it be prudent to pass the second parameter through a function that strips invisible characters such as this? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be nice. I just encountered one of those, where a talk section for no obvious reason wasn't being archived. --Pipetricker (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pipetricker: Once upon a time, I'd written module:unsigned. Though I've just discovered that template:xsign exists. Perhaps we could integrate them both with this template? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 01:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Unsigned has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please merge the revision at Template:Unsigned/sandbox. The main features include stripping U+200e from the timestamp in order to not break automated archiving, and adding "(UTC)" at the end if it is not already included, so copying and pasting from the history page is easier. This is done only if the timestamp parameter is provided at all.

→Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Substing

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, and community consensus says we should subst, but for some reason it always irks me when it happens. Like here: [5]. A whole load of wikitext splurge has been put in place of a nice succinct template. Could someone remind me why this is advantageous? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue here. I use {{unsigned}} all the time (except I also add date & time ie: ( {{unsignedIP|123.123.123.123|17:00, 08 March 2016}} ) and I've never had a problem. - ^theWOLFchild 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: what I mean is, we are recommended to use {{subst:unsigned|Foo|Bar}} rather than {{unsigned|Foo|Bar}}. And if we do add the template directly rather than substing, a bot comes in afterwards and substs it anyway. When substed, you end up with the following text in the wiki markup:

— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Foo|Foo]] ([[User talk:Foo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Foo|contribs]]) Bar

Which seems rather unnecessary verbose text in the markup, just for a little note to say who a comment was by. I'm wondering what the rationale is for the recommendation to subst. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The advantage comes from a time when changing widely-used templates would cause the wiki to break. The wiki does not break any longer, but the job queue does shoot up, causing updates to other pages using the job queue to slow if not stop completely while the wiki processes the template changes. This was expected to be (and is) a widely-used template. Even now, we hold up changes to e.g. the citation templates because we like to avoid these issues where possible. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As per Izno, it would be much safer to subst to avoid spam or other weird messages appearing should the template become unprotected. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This template has been edited ten times since 7 December 2010‎ or an edit every 6.8 months on average. {{Navbar}} is used on 6,930,000+ pages and has 11 edits since 26 December 2010‎. Wikipedia's job queue system seems to be able to handle the spikes caused when a heavily used template is edited. Can the robot that auto-substitutes this template be disabled and the recommendation to subst be dropped? Several times I've seen an unsigned comment, I add {{unsigned}}, save the edit, and then reply to the comment. I get an edit conflict as the robot has dived in and expanded the template. I have also signed a comment and later when looking at my contributions list wonder why I don't see (current) for an obscure talk page and so click to see what got added. Again the cause was the robot's edit. I know I could try to program subst: into my fingers but they have been doing {{unsigned|...}} for over ten years. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what looks so ugly? And while the wikitext was shown in the thread above... here's the actual template result, for reference (and to desensitise the OP to the mess a bit more when he replies!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhead7890 (talk • contribs) }} (actually signed by the replying person. Updated text at 07:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC))

The HTML tags are irritating, but it's not like it's any different than a citation template's spew into the page... I like to enable the coloured wikitext option, in the vanilla preferences I believe, which helps a lot. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (actually this time)

I think the main reason is that bots won't recognize templated signatures, this is mainly a problem for archiving bots. AnomieBOT will usually go and subst the template if you forget it, hence why Thewolfchild "never had a problem". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nyuszika7H "Usually", but not always. I've manually cleaned up and archived several talk pages, and in the process of doing so, had to add sigs to comments that were, in some cases, up to 10+ years old. - ^theWOLFchild 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If a robot can't recognize a templated signature then the robot can be updated. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Templated signatures are forbidden, see WP:SIG#NT. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

From the way it's worded I see that WP:SIG#NT is about user defined templates and for those I agree with the rational given other than the first bullet which is poorly worded. The robots are looking for timestamps and not signatures. My earlier comment was about community templates such as {{unsigned}} which are protected. Robots will recognize and use timestamps anywhere in the wikitxt including if they appear in template parameters. There's no need to transclude the wikitext nor to subst: {{unsigned}}. You can ignore my earlier comment about that the robots need to be updated. For example, the "17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)" in {{unsigned|username|17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)}}, would be spotted and recognized as a timestamp by both ClueBot III and Lowercase sigmabot III. ClueBot III scans the talk page sections using "/(\d{2}):(\d{2}), (\d+) ([a-zA-Z]+) (\d{4}) $UTC$/i" and Lowercase sigmabot III uses "\d\d:\d\d, \d{1,2} (\w*?) \d\d\d\d $UTC$" Both of those allow the time stamps to be anywhere in the wikitext as long they are within sections defined by '== ... =='.^{[1 and 2]} --Marc Kupper|talk 17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

These are not the only bots that look for timestamps or signatures. For example, there is Legobot (talk · contribs) which among its many tasks decides if an RfC has run its thirty-day course by looking for the first timestamp which occurs after the {{rfc}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If a someone's code looks for a timestamp then we are ok as the timestamps are there in the wikitext. The only code that would break things that attempt to detect a signature by looking for a link to a user page or one of the user special pages followed by a timestamp. There's User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter for example but but that would not break on a templated {{unsigned}} as it's a JavaScript thing that looks at and rewrites the generated HTML. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This template is broken

cause I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be displaying this, which I've seen on two occasions: — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) L3X1 (distant write) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not broken. The first unnamed (positional) parameter is required (e.g. {{subst:unsigned|L3X1}} or preferably {{subst:unsigned|L3X1|02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)}}). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Automatic pinging

I think it would make sense if the target of an unsigned template were automatically pinged. As it is, I don't see that this the case, as the templating user does not himself sign (unless he also writes a comment of his own at the same time). Am I correct in assuming that there is currently no ping, and if so, is there a specific reason why that is the case? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gamall Wednesday Ida: By "pinged" I take it you mean notified. It is important to remember that templates do not generate notifications. Amongst other things, there are two things that are essential for a notification: (i) a link to the user page of the user who is to be notified; (ii) a valid signature of the person making the post. When user A doesn't sign a post, and user B then uses {{subst:unsigned|A}}, we have condition (i) but not condition (ii). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64: Quite, this is how I understood it to work. Which brings me to the second part of the question: would it not be desirable that this specific template notify its target -- despite the technical absence of a signature? If one leaves a comment unsigned, it is generally a mistake, and the comment may be truncated or unfinished -- I ran into this case just yesterday. I can't think of any circumstances where a user would legitimately want not to be notified of his unsigned comments.

If we agree on this, how difficult would it be to come up with a variant of the template that does this? I imagine that, in the worst case, if a signature expansion is absolutely required for a notification, a ~~~~ could be added to the template. Signatures are not expanded in HTML comments, apparently, but could probably be made invisible via CSS. This would also solve another gripe that I have with the template: it currently does not tell you who picked up your unsigned comment, you have to find out in the history. Finding this in the source would be an improvement. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit) I'm not sure if there is a way to integrate the ~~~~ into a template in such a way that it's expanded at the same time as the template, as I've tried to do here. A naked ~~~~ is expanded into the template while editing it. A <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> is of course never expanded. This feels like \expandafter LaTeX problems all over again... (edit2) The best idea I've got is to have an extra parameter where the templating user signs using ~~~~, and wrapping this into "display:none" CSS. Using this {{User:Gamall Wednesday Ida/us|Gamall2|x=~~~~}} does the trick. Now, I would like to do the same thing, without having to write x=~~~~ each time. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the best place to ask for advice on hacky template coding. But any change like that would need to gain broad consensus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64: The core of my question, in both my posts here, was not about the coding -- that was an afterthought that I couldn't help but fall into; notice also the bolded if -- but about whether it is really desirable that this template behave the way I want it to behave. It is not even about gaining consensus yet, but determining whether the current template behaves that way because (i) notifications would be a pain in circumstance X that I just didn't think about, or (ii) notifications would not be obviously problematic, but were not implemented for reason Y. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't notify because it cannot notify. No template can. This is because the notifications are part of the MediaWiki software, the Echo extension. Templates like {{user}} and {{user link}} existed for years before the notifications feature was created, and no change was made to those templates in order to notify users. It is simply the coincidental fact that these templates are coded to include a user link (and not any other coding feature in the template) that triggers a notification - provided that the template is used in combination with a valid signature. So Gamall Wednesday Ida will have been notified by this edit, where I misused {{unsigned}} and signed it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64:Great, so that's case (ii): "desirable, but not implemented for reason Y". That's what I wanted to know. And now it becomes a technical problem. Even if there is no direct template feature to do that, indirect ways can probably be made to work. My variant {{User:Gamall Wednesday Ida/us|Gamall2|x=~~~~}} is halfway there already, triggering a notification thanks to an invisible signature. I'll take it to VPT if I can't find a trick to make the template produce the ~~~~ itself, rather than having the user pass it as parameter. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Make it easier

Is there some reason why this template can't be coded to parse a time string and author credit, copied-and-pasted straight out of a rev history page? Why must I manually turn e.g. 2017-05-22T11:00:39‎ 221.9.13.186 into 221.9.13.186|11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)? Why can't the template just take 2017-05-22T11:00:39‎ 221.9.13.186 as a parameter? Jeh (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you change your preferences to a different date/time format, you can use {{xsign}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Such a magic template would both have to handle all the available date formats and would have to be able to take into account the local user's timezone setting, or else it (like {{xsign}}) would only be useful for people who're willing to set their preferences a certain way. Personally, I use a user script to make adding the template even easier in that I don't have to check the revision history manually. Anomie ⚔ 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - simplify due to participle ambiguity

This edit request to Template:Unsigned has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

tl;dr: Please consider the following wording, as due to custom the word "preceding" is not necessary, and can be ambiguous otherwise: — unsigned comment added by Example (...)

Hello, I've noticed some discussions (now archived at subsections # Grammar as well as # Ambiguity of...) that the word "preceding" is ambiguous, because what "preceding" refers to is not clear (ie, a dangling participle). It could be either the comment before the template, as intended; or the template before another comment.

I initially proposed that in future it should read "the preceding unsigned comment" [2015]. This is to avoid confusion with the erroneous interpretation "This is preceding an unsigned comment". It still doesn't sound perfect, but I believe it's the simplest possible change that would help. In fact at one stage it was already implemented, but it was decided it should be removed a few years later.

However, others have noted at various stages that it is too long and suchlike. Perhaps in a nod to David's decision in 2007, I feel like an alternative such as deleting the preceding (after all, as one user noted the template is placed where a signature would go after the comment anyway, so describing the template's relative position isn't necessary). So because the template replaces a signature, it still indicates where the comment is.

So that is what I am currently proposing: that it should read — unsigned comment added by Example (...). By reducing unnecessary complications, it is simpler and better fits the purpose of signing abandoned comments.

Techhead7890 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done For a change in the text of a very highly substituted template like this, for something debated before etc, you'd need a consensus before requesting a change made. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. I suppose it is widely used, regardless of transclusion or substitution. Anyway, I think there are three reasons I disagree: I don't believe such grammatical changes were "debated" per se and was not highly controversial – as mentioned, similar grammatical changes were implented in 2005 by a generic user; Wikipedia:High-risk templates are primarily protected against vandalism and technical issues, not wording improvements; and the change requested is essentially a continuation of the 2007 decision (see "removed" link) to change the wording to suit the purpose.

Anyway, I suppose I should head to the village pump if I want to open it up to fresh discussion? My 2015 proposal did not gain much traction from sitting here on the talk, and I'm not aware of a Proposal for Edits forum (unlike AfD/RfD or similar). Techhead7890 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs

Could a parameter be added to this and the Unsigned-IP template to allow optional provision of the corresponding diff? it doesn't sound difficult to do so and I might have a go at creating a new template or two, but I'm very new at writing or modifying templates. It seems to me that a diff is often helpful. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A parameter could be added easily enough. But unless you convince User:SineBot to start using it, I doubt it'll be used very often so it might not be worth the effort. Anomie ⚔ 22:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Using it as in adding it to the sigs it adds? That would be a logical extension to this proposal but not sure it's worth the effort. All I'm asking for is a parameter to do what I already often do but more elegantly. I don't normally add a diff, just in discussions that have the possibility of misunderstanding, but these are often the very ones in which newbies and/or IPs with few edits forget to sign. If it were to prove popular, then by all means think about getting Sinebot to use it too. Cross that bridge if and when.

I can and probably will do something if nobody else does... maybe a template:unsigned9 for example... but it would be a lot neater I'm sure if it were picked up right from the start by those that are old hands at it, especially considering the history of these templates, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_6#Template:Unsigned3 and many similar discussions over the years. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Easier usage

The documentation is not adequate for handling this very common use case:

1. You set up automatic archiving

2. The next day, when checking everything went well, you find one or more unsigned talk sections remaining (because the last comment didn't have a date)

3. This template (and its cousins) assume without even mentioning it that you will now spend lots of time hunting through the talk page's history for the date when that (possibly a decade old) comment was made and by who.

4. Then, it further presumes (again with no help) that you will manage to extract the correct information from the edit history to add this template.

This is clearly unreasonable.

In fact, I mostly just give up, and instead add a small administrative note myself (to the talk page section that doesn't archive because it lacks a signed/dated comment):

Editor note: Adding comment with date stamp for eventual automatic archiving. CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In short - nobody cares about the exact name/ip and date of a years-old throwaway comment. We just want the section to archive. So add a template that makes it go away, instead of asking users to go on wild goose chases for very little payoff. Thank you.

Do note - I'm sure this template has its entirely valid uses. But it's also where I come when I try to fix un-archived talk sections. But the documentation does not anticipate this! CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Addition of (UTC)

Why does Template:Unsigned add "(UTC)" to the timestamp automatically but with Template:UnsignedIP it has to be added manually? Shouldn't both templates work in the same way? --Jameboy (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that they should both add the "(UTC)". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see a difference when the user forgets to add the "UTC" themselves but no difference if they remember, per this test in my sandbox. --Jameboy (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that: my point is that {{subst:unsignedIP}} should also add a missing "(UTC)". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for fixing it. --Jameboy (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Varia

Grammar

Category tag

Commons

Removal of message by user

Why Small?

Subs't

Bug in Tempate?

Broken noinclude

Interwiki link to vi:

Unnecessary words

Keep the others in sync

block log

(UTC)

German version

Subst code fragment

Easier usage?

Please delete comment from Template:Unsigned2

Protection

Substitution

usage instructions

Question

Requests to add interwiki links

Time Stamp

Subst

Space before period at end of template

WP:UNSIGNED

Very Confusing

includeonly subst

Wikipedia:Signatures

Issues

See also: {{Unsig}}

On [date]?

Requested edit

Explicit request?

switch "name" <-> "date" parameters

Date format should be ISO 8601

Bad substing

Remove "unsigned" from template

the example for User12 is broken

iw to af

small with class

I added the functional parts of this template to the Greek wikipedia

Another template is needed

I added the functional parts of this template to the Polish Wikipedia

Text too small

Sandbox

Seamless version

Why substitute?

Small class

Question

Template:Substituted

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unsigned8

Edit request from Banaticus, 22 April 2011

Space after em-dash?

Spacing in the template

UTC time in template documentation

capitalization for user name or IP

Add UTC to timestamp

Protected edit request on 26 April 2014

Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted

Create an autounsigned template?

An editor deliberately removing signature?

Some kind of bug

Suggestion to change order of parameters

Ambiguity of "preceeding"

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

Invisible characters

Substing

This template is broken

Automatic pinging

Make it easier

Edit request - simplify due to participle ambiguity

Diffs

Easier usage

Addition of (UTC)