Template talk:Unsigned/Archive 2

Template-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

Can you please remove the comment in the beginning from the template. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Why should this be done? The short comment seems to do no harm, and can make it easier to find the start if someone wants to replace it with their actual signature. Anomie⚔ 11:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Shouldn't the "unsigned" link point to Wikipedia:Unsigned as opposed to just Wikipedia:Signatures?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Davey2010. The idea, though, is to link to a helper page for whoever forgot to sign their post, not to a helper page for those who apply this template. The suggested link goes to a section that would explain to editors what to do if they come across an unsigned post, while the existing link explains to editors who forget to sign their posts just why it is important to do so. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay that makes sense, I obviously didn't think of it that way lol, Many thanks for your informative reply anyway :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine   —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we have a set of templates that are USER FRIENDLY

All I want to do is end a talk section with a date, so autoarchival works.

I am not in the slightest interested in finding out what user made the edit (which can be years or decades old). I am definitely not going to muck around with UTC dates. Neither date nor username is interesting to the bots, so they aren't interesting to me.

Please make this template work without a username. As it is, it's simpler to simply say "hello" and sign yourself. This accomplishes everything important, namely ending the section with a date that archival bots understand. CapnZapp (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to make this template not require a username. That's not what this template is for.

• If you want a similar template that does not need a username, see {{undated}}. Although using it in for a comment that is also not signed would not really be correct, and you'd still have to find the correct date.
• If you just want to "force" User:Lowercase sigmabot III to archive, you might try something like {{subst:DNAU|-30}} to tell it "do not archive until 30 days ago".
  • BTW, as far as I can tell Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't care if the section ends with a date, just that it contains a date somewhere. It uses the latest recognized timestamp anywhere in the section.
• If you think User:ClueBot III pays attention to the timestamps in the wikitext, it seems you're wrong.
• It's also valid to just add your own comment to the thread, and let the bots archive it at the appropriate time after that.
• There are also a few user scripts to assist in manually archiving a thread, and at least one to assist in adding {{unsigned}}.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but none of your suggestions target my concern. I don't want to muck with a time. I don't want to hunt down whatever user/ip made the comment. I don't want to "force" archiving or archive manually. I want to be able to do like this: {{unsigned}} ~~~~ that adds something like "the preceding comment was unsigned" with my signature. That's all Lowercase sigmabot cares about - the timestamp in my signature. I've already stated I have on occasion added my own comment - I'm discussing here under the assumption that feels... clumsy and coarse, compared to having a formal-looking template. If you're saying we should add a new template for this purpose, please first detail your arguments as to why this can't/shouldn't be used. Personally, I see no reason to add a new template when this is so easy to remember. Once more, thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If all you want is "the preceding comment was unsigned ~~~~", you could just type that instead of asking for this template to be screwed up. Anomie⚔ 22:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Now I will have to assume you're being slow on purpose, because I will assume you're enough of an experienced Wikipedian to realize the worth of templates when it comes to standardizing messages. Having a template also means Wikipedia actively tells us editors "it's okay - go ahead and say this" (because the existence of a template implies usage is recommended). Being generous, I'm going to interpret your comment as saying "okay fine, but create a new template for that, instead of using this one".

But is that really a reasonable argument? There are already a lot of "unsigned" template variations. Isn't a new one just going to fall by the wayside? And wait, how am I "screwing up" this template by making the userid optional? In other words, Anomie, can I ask you to please step up your argumentation if you wish to participate in this discussion? Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Anomie⚔ 11:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was an nonconstructive discussion :( CapnZapp (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone objecting to making username optional? CapnZapp (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so sorry CapnZapp, I see no need for it. One of the many things I love to do on Wikipedia is to go through talk page histories to find who posted what to a given discussion thread. I learn a lot of other things while doing such research. So please chill out and try to have lots of fun with making improvements to this encyclopedia! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object to diverting the template from its design purpose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I designed it; I don't care at all about that aspect. But rather than litter this simple template with conditionals and special cases, I do suggest just using another template. Call it {{unsigned0}} and nobody will complain. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong; I'd G4 it as a recreation of Template:unsigned-unk, which was deleted at TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that User:Pppery. Obviously we shouldn't have such a discussion at a "for deletion" discussion, so I'm pinging those participating in that tFD: @EoRdE6, Hipocrite, PC78, Alakzi, Plastikspork, Pigsonthewing, ToonLucas22, Eman235, and NSH002:: The use case is getting automatic archiving to work. There needs to be a way to just say "the preceding comment was unsigned" followed by my signature. I don't care when or by who. I should not be forced into doing menial bot labor just to achieve that. The absence of a standardized message just means we're going to add a random regular comment, so the notion People should use Template:Unsigned for correct signatures is unrealistic and elitist. It tries to force people into using user-hostile templates by the absence of user-friendly ones and that never works.

I'm not committed to making this happen here (=making Template:Unsigned accept zero parameters), but if you're going to prevent the creation of a standalone template on purely administrative grounds (I'd G4 it as a recreation of Template:unsigned-unk) you better offer a workable approach going forward. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons {{Unsigned-unk}} was deleted is because the whole idea is for editors to know who posted and when. Anything else is unhelpful. You may not care about who and when, CapnZapp; however, the community consensus is that most editors want to know who and when. It's not just about archiving, it can sometimes be about knowing how to proceed, how to move forward, how to help editors learn how to leave their signature. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And I'm not taking away that from anyone. You can still go through talk page histories to find who posted what. You could even do that after somebody else used {{unsigned}} or whatever we end up with. I'm just saying it would be a nice thing to have a standardized message for what people do anyway. Let's question the notion that the absence of user-friendly templates somehow makes Wikipedia editors use user-hostile ones. That's a false choice. The choice isn't between posting a note with and without user/datestamp. The choice is between using a standardized and non-standardized message without user/datestamp.

Now, I couldn't find any previous discussion concerning the completion of talk page sections in order to make autoarchival work, so I started this topic to do just that. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see where you seem to think of these as friendly or not friendly. They are simply teaching tools with links to information that helps those who forget to leave a sig. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe it's just in the perspective? And editor Anomie already pointed to alternatives for timestamping talk page sections for auto-archiving, none of which required altering templates that have worked well for many years. Where's the beef? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a perfect illustration of the current situation, where a widely-used template would have been a great improvement: [[1]] Notice how the IP has cobbled together his or her own "unsigned template". The core issue here is: asking regular editors to find out editor ids and UTC timestamps is not reasonable - there needs to be a easier friendlier option available for those of us who do not want or care (or are able to) use the existing set of templates.

Please do not get hung up (or protective, even) about modifying existing templates. I don't have to modify existing templates - but what choice do I have when editors go out of their way to block/hinder efforts to remedy this situation, such as when Pppery says I'd G4 it as a recreation of Template:unsigned-unk. This technical response might be theoretically impeccable, but it also completely ignores the issue. The deletion discussion of "unsigned-unk" did not even touch upon the problem area raised here!

Now then, for the alternatives Paine Ellsworth believes Anomie pointed out:

• If you want a similar template that does not need a username, see {{undated}}.

This would, as Anomie himself points out, still have to find the correct date. Thus, not a solution.

• If you just want to "force" User:Lowercase sigmabot III to archive, you might try something like {{subst:DNAU|-30}} to tell it "do not archive until 30 days ago".

This seems to indicate Anomie hasn't truly understood the use case. (Either that, or I'm the one not understanding?) I just want a quick easy template that turns an unsigned talk section lowercase sigmabot doesn't touch into a talk section it does archive. At any rate, even if this does work, it's - again - far overestimating the general wikipedian's technical ability.

BTW, as far as I can tell Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't care if the section ends with a date, just that it contains a date somewhere. It uses the latest recognized timestamp anywhere in the section.

I believe this is wrong, but I would be happy to stand corrected. Anyway, it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that the bot needs one more datestamp.

• It's also valid to just add your own comment to the thread, and let the bots archive it at the appropriate time after that.

It is precisely this I want to standardize. Standardization means templates.

• There are also a few user scripts to assist in manually archiving a thread, and at least one to assist in adding {{unsigned}}.

I do not want to manually archive. Autoarchiving is imho superior, and so I want a minimal-effort template that makes the bot work. (If someone later wants to go back and replace the minimal template with a proper "unsigned" template - complete with user id and UTC date - nothing stops you and you are most welcome to do so.) As for the user script advice, I would like to argue that the very presence of a helper script proves the existing templates are too hard to use!

Again, the contention here is my claim that finding out editor ids and UTC timestamps is too difficult, too time-consuming, to ask of regular users. The existing alternative, to ask regular editors to do nothing awaiting the correct usage of existing templates by knowledgeable users, is not sufficient, not when the problem is that autoarchival gets held up. Please work with me to find a constructive path forward. Thank you for reading. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor CapnZapp: hesitated to suggest this because I might get my head chopped off, however why not just go to the unsigned section you want archived and add five tildes, ~~~~~, which results in: 18:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC), to the very end of the section. Then you go back in and edit the date to: 1 January 2020 (more than 90 days or whatever the archiving calls for). I've never done that since I prefer as I said to research the page history, but I suppose if I were pressed for time, then I might do something like that. Does that help? or no. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting five tildes as a solution? I'm afraid the second stage is likely too much work to make it palatable to the general public. (And if I can speak for myself, I don't mind that the section in question won't be autoarchived until 30 or 90 days later - I'm content with my edit eventually getting the section archived) Won't an isolated datestamp create more questions than it answers. For instance, I will now deliberately leave this edit unsigned, and then I'll go back and add five tildes. Honestly I think many editors will revert that as test edits, not understanding the intent behind the edit.

10:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Never having done it, I'm no expert. Sounds like all you need with the five tildes is a brief "For archiving purposes: ~~~~~", oslt. Either leave it like that or go back and change the date, whichever you prefer. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:06, 4 July 1776 (UTC)

I'm still not sure we understand each other. I can already add a regular edit. What isn't available right now (as far as I know) is a template that standardizes the edit, saves typing, doesn't force each editor to reinvent his own wheel. (You know, basic reasons for using templates) Are you suggesting the template should yield the text For archiving purposes: ~~~~~", oslt.? What does "oslt" mean? Personally, I feel discussing the specifics of the language is a bit premature; first we need to agree on which template to use. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Oslt" is just an initialism used widely on the internet and means "or something like that". Templates are not just used to standardize text, and I think template editors are put off when they see a template misused for what you seem to want. Most templates are pretty intricate and code-convoluted, which is why template editors are really needed in the first place. To make a template for something that can be done just by typing a few words and tildes is, well, just not template-oriented. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

First off, by boiling down my use case to "just by typing a few words and tildes" you are downplaying the use case and its challenges. In the absence of a readily-available solution, each editor has to reinvent the wheel over and over again, adding a needless barrier to making autoarchiving work. (I really should not have to tell you this, though.) Secondly, no, templates are not exclusively used for intricate and code-convoluted tasks, and no, templates do not (and should not) always need template editors to be written. Cf:

• WP:TEMPLATE: Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. They are commonly used for boilerplate messages, ...
• mw:Help:Templates: If you have standard texts you want to include on several pages, the MediaWiki template feature comes into play.
• I'll just leave WP:Discussion templates here...

Having a template contain only static text with no bells and whistles is fine. It can be useful just by existing. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In this edit, the IP didn't cobbled together his or her own "unsigned template" - they added some plain text, enclosed in <small>...</small> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. No template was involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's my point User:Redrose64. There is no template (despite a clear use case) and so editors such as this IP has to cobble together ad-hoc manual solutions. (At the risk of being over-explanatory the lack of a template is the problem. The solution is having a standardized phrasing, otherwise known as "a template".) CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

moving forward

Aight, discussion seems to have died down. How then to progress? After reviewing all helpful suggestions, it seems to me nothing can replace a simple template. Here I see three paths forward:

a. modify {{unsigned}} to accept no parameters. Since other editors have warned me this template uses intricate syntax I wouldn't attempt this even if page protection would have let me. I do see this as a desirable second stage, though.

b. resurrect {{unsigned-unk}}. Again, I can't do this myself. And fighting a TfD seems futile. Besides, I have no idea what it says. So, no.

This leaves option c:

c. create a new template - I guess I need to start off by making my own suggestion, so I propose {{unsigned0}}.

In all cases I propose the following as the desired output: "The preceding comment was not signed." Follow the template with your signature as usual, i.e. {{unsigned0}} ~~~~ gives "The preceding comment was not signed. CapnZapp (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)" The prize here is the UTC datestamp (in cases where the talk section didn't autoarchive precisely because of the lack of one) - the text and your signature is mostly only there to make other editors understand what you did. In all cases, of course, the "documentation family" for the unsigned templates will be updated accordingly. I would also make a mention over at WP:Discussion templates.

If you have a better solution, I'm all ears. CapnZapp (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@EoRdE6, Hipocrite, PC78, Alakzi, Plastikspork, Pigsonthewing, ToonLucas22, Eman235, NSH002, Pppery, Anomie, Paine Ellsworth, Redrose64, and Jpgordon: last call for comments... CapnZapp (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:HORSEMEAT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of that. "If the debate has died, don't revive it." Is that a go ahead? An objection? Or what? I just wanted to hash it out before taking action - people keeping silent until they have something to revert is so destructive, so I wanted to give a second week to garner comments before effecting change. If you meant you didn't want to get pinged about something you have no stake in, you could just have stayed silent. But you have my apologies. CapnZapp (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Parameters backwards

Hi! Would it be feasible to change the parameters, or would that break stuff?

If I look at an edit history, I see this:

02:21, June 15, 2020‎ Foo

So I paste this into this template. But if I do this:

{{subst:unsigned|02:21, June 15, 2020‎|Foo}}

it is backwards of how it should be, displaying with the username as the date and the date as the username:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:21, June 15, 2020‎ (talk • contribs) Foo (UTC)

Could the parameters be swapped to avoid this problem and make the template user-friendly? DemonDays64 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: This is precisely why we also have {{subst:unsigned2}} and {{subst:unsignedIP2}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@DemonDays64: On the other hand, the signature produced by ~~~~ has the user name first and the date second. So changing things here as you suggest would break that correspondence. Changing it would also break all the users (and bots) used to the current ordering. Your best option is to use the alternative templates Redrose64 pointed out if you prefer the parameters in that order. You might also look at {{subst:Xsign}}. Anomie⚔ 20:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

Remove &nbsp between "—" and "Preceding" for consistency with {{undated}} JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Reverted This leads to asymmetry where the dash is preceded by a space but not followed by one, unless the code of SineBot is modified. It also engendered inconsistency with {{Unsigned IP}}. Please establish a consensus before proceeding with this change. Nardog (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Breakage depending on attribute of the <small> element of this template

Resolved

 – The likely need for |1= isn't specific to this template, but a general issue with templates. --Fyrisdal (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This subst of {{Unsigned|...}} caused the output of the enclosing {{strikethroughdiv|...}} to be:

{{{1}}}

Experimenting with preview, I found that this for some reason can be fixed by removing the attribute of the <small> element in the output of {{subst:Unsigned|...}}.

If the <small> element has an attribute with a value, the strike­throughdiv is broken, otherwise it is not. What the attribute is, or what its value is, doesn't matter regarding this. Also, if <small> is replaced with <span>, it works or breaks the same way. If the strike­throughdiv is replaced with {{strikethrough|...}}, it works or breaks the same way. On the other hand: if the strikethroughdiv is replaced with <div style="text-decoration: line-through">...</div>, the breakage doesn't occur. --Fyrisdal (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Replace {{strikethroughdiv| with {{strikethroughdiv|1=. Nardog (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah..., of course. Thanks. I guess it wouldn't hurt to mention in a usage note in template documentation that it's likely to break without it, ping. --Fyrisdal (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I have added a usage recommendation to the Strikethroughdiv documentation. Thanks for the ping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

Copy the sandbox contents into the live template, which has a complete sentence and a useful message to prevent further disruption by continuous unsigned comments. JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Best seek consensus. Originally intended not to be large because of it's inline placement (not on 2 lines for many). Nor was it's intent as a learning lesson placed on thousands and thousands of edits.--Moxy 🍁 04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IPv6 and the various unsigned/undated templates

{{unsigned}} (and related templates) seem broken when using an IPv6 address. Special:Contributions only accepts uppercase formatted IP6 addresses, not lowercase, nor mixed case. This should have a regexp to find an IP6 input, and then upcase it to pass it to the contributions link. And do whatever it needs to to select the upper/lower cased version that functions as the actual user page (which I have no idea whether the user page is upcased or downcased). [?action=history] generates lowercased IP6, while [Special:Contrutions] accepts only uppercase IP6, so either way could be the "correct" user page. (MediaWiki appears to treat all different capitalizations of IP6 as different userspace pages)

Example:

• Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1DE0:8FB0:48CE:823:DDC6:3A30
  • 2600:1702:1DE0:8FB0:48CE:823:DDC6:3A30 (talk · contribs)
    • {{unsigned|2600:1702:1DE0:8FB0:48CE:823:DDC6:3A30}}
      • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1DE0:8FB0:48CE:823:DDC6:3A30 (talk • contribs)
• Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1de0:8fb0:48ce:823:ddc6:3a30
  • 2600:1702:1de0:8fb0:48ce:823:ddc6:3a30 (talk · contribs)
    • {{subst:unsigned|2600:1702:1de0:8fb0:48ce:823:ddc6:3a30}}
      • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1de0:8fb0:48ce:823:ddc6:3a30 (talk • contribs)

-- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions failing on lowercase IPv6 is a recent bug phab:T272225: "Special:Contributions no longer accepts display form of IPv6 addresses". It will presumably be fixed soon in MediaWiki. Discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MediaWiki userspace and User Contribution special search for IPv6 broken? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Remove the word "Preceding" or replace it with a shorter word to make the template slightly less disruptive. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• What makes the word "preceding" disruptive? I think constantly not signing your own comments is more disruptive as that is established policy via WP:SIGN. – The Grid (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No parameter version

Please add support for using this template with no parameters.

The main drawback of leaving your comments unsigned is that the autoarchiving bots will then not archive that talk section. If I want to remedy this problem, the unsigned template family currently does not allow me to do this without a lot of bother. I couldn't care less about the exact user name and date, and just want the comment to be signed. Currently, there's no template for this, forcing me to simply post a new comment saying "the previous comment was unsigned ~~~~".

Adding support for no parameters to this template would solve this irritant, like this:

{{unsigned}} produces <span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding comment was [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]].</span> ~~~~:

Some random comment. — Preceding comment was unsigned. CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This would add the formatting and the class assignment(?) that editors otherwise can't be bothered to mess around with. Please stop believing that making things hard for people will make them follow your rules. The only practical result of the misguided attempt to force people to research the arguments just to be allowed to use the bloody template is... that people will bypass the template! Somewhat yours, CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

While it's possible consensus has changed since last year, it's more likely you should just drop the stick. Your best bet is probably to find consensus (elsewhere, not here) that {{unsigned-unk}} should be undeleted. Anomie⚔ 12:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Special:Contributions necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was wondering if the Special:Contributions link is really necessary. I mean, if users add a standard WP:4TILDES signature, there's no mention of Special:Contributions; only the username and a talk link are shown (varied by preference settings). Further, if a user changes their username, their old username and talk link are given redirects, but the Special:Contributions link is broken.

If a user wishes to add a link to their contributions, they can—and do so—through custom preferences. If someone wishes to see that user's contributions, they can navigate to that user's page or talk page, and click the User contributions link that's along the left edge of the screen.

I therefore propose removing the Special:Contributions link from {{Unsigned}}, {{Unsigned IP}}, and {{Single-purpose account}}.
I have placed discussion links on the other two talk pages. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is necessary but the contributions link is desirable. Experience shows that the templates mentioned above are often used with problematic users and a quick way to see the contribs is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What about existing unsigned signatures following a username change? Lacking a redirect, the Special:Contributions link pulls up a "not registered" error. That's how I became aware of the problem—revisiting one of my unsigned comments from +10 years ago (see example). In my particular case, I just removed the contributions link for the 'four tildes' reason I stated above. I'm interested in suggestions on when the link is broken. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I find the contributions link in this template very beneficial to the project. Often new users do not know how to sign their comments, and it is helpful to quickly navigate to the contributions and see if they have failed to do so anywhere else. It also helps with problematic new users, especially. Net positive for the project, I see the username change issue as an extremely small downside for a big benefit.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Little benefit. If the problem really mattered, it wouldn't be hard to roll a robot to detect name changes, look through the talk page contributions, and twiddle the username in the contributions link. But the problem doesn't really matter, and the usefulness of the contributions link outweighs the occasional shameful and embarrassing failure of the link. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Observation: The current vibe I am getting from this question is that if I forget to sign, and I don't like the Special:Contributions link that appears as a result of my negligence, then to correct only my comment, but the unsigned templates that add them won't be changed as requested. If there are not enough supportive replies to balance the opposition after 30 7 days, then I will consider this a consensus to be archived. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 02:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC))

  You could simply not forget to sign your posts. I am typing my post with a clear message to sign my posts. There's userscripts, or even better, gadgets you can enable on your account. For instance, a beta feature currently available is "Discussion Tools" and it will auto sign your replies. In short, I see the contributions link very helpful here. – The Grid (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  The instance being referred to, along with one or two others, were from 2009 when I was new and entirely unfamiliar with the 'four tildes'. I think inexperienced editors are forgiven for being unfamiliar with gadgets and scripts. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

Always sign your comments with ~~~~ should be added, so it looks like this. EthanGaming7640 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There are a lot of changes in this version. Please discuss. Why did you delete |2=, for example? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)