Template talk:Unsigned

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Unsigned has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

If you wish an edit to be made to something else, such as rewording the documentation or adding an interwiki link, you can edit Template:Unsigned/doc.

Unsigned Templates: Unsigned, Unsigned2, Unsigned3, Undated, UnsignedIP

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Commons

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Why Small?

Why is the <small> 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 <small> 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] (UTC)

Could the (UTC) be added on as a default so that {{Unsigned|name|09:18, 3 May 2006)}} would produce —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)}}.</small> 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Myrtone03:15, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] See also: {{Unsig}}

{{Unsig}} redirects back to this page...why is it in the See Also section (can this be fixed?)? Jhawkinson 13:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was once a unique page. I've removed the link. -SCEhard T 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/s/Template_talk%7EUnsigned_552b.html"