Template talk:Unsigned

ahh damn, someone care to tell me where i screwed it up? Calor (t) 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you? --Edru viransu 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Try using it. It adds the whole page, not just the "the preceding....User:xyz" part. I know I likely missed a tag somewhere, but I don't know what tag or where. Calor (t) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You missed the subst: part, methinks? --- -- (s)talkpage 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tried myself. It gives a message "Template Loop detected". No idea what that may mean. But it does add everything on this page, yes. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I tried and I got the whole damn page there, and no template loop thing. What page did you try it on? EDIT: Just read what came up thoroughly. I got the template loop messgae too. Calor (t) 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. You left out the closing noinclude tag. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Edru viransu .

You did. I just applied it. I had a feeling it was an includeonly or noinclude tag. I prolly missed a line c/ping from GWW. :( Calor (t) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Testing. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Brains12 .

lol --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cursed Angel .

what if it's an ip address? Shouldn't that be demoed too? ♥ Ariyen ♀ 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got the same problem as Ariyen now. What if it wasn't signed by an IP? Can anyone include that? xD --Naoroji 09:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IP test

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.211.211.211 (talk). -- Itay Alon • Talk 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

test -- Itay Alon • Talk 10:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Unsigned 2

I recommend merging this with {{unsigned2}} for the following reasons:

• This template lacks a timestamp, which is an important part of the context of posts (especially since frequent wiki contributors are well aware of how often people respond to ancient posts, not realizing how long ago they were written).
• The code itself is unnecessarily complicated: there's no need to include a switch for IPs.
  • Its obvious to readers that the poster is anonymous.
  • It's only marginally important that the template will redlink to a non-existent user page.
  • Templates like this are meant to be substituted, and this one leaves a trail of code making it more difficult to edit.
• Unsigned2 also allows for easy copy/paste from the history page (i.e. in timestamp → userID order).

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the date parameter as optional and did a check for the corresponding user so it knows automatically if it's an ip or user, which should be sufficient. It stays easier to use while veteran users can use unsigned2 as they prefer.--Relyk 04:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, per your change the template spits out an ifexist statement, I don't think thats good practise for a subst template :/ -Chieftain Alex 10:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy if it didn't leave any statements...--Relyk ~ talk > 11:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken

Both unsigned templates have been broken for some time. What's the deal? --Felbryn (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

{{subst:unsigned2| 03:34, 17 May 2013‎|Felbryn}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Felbryn (talk • contribs) at 03:34, 17 May 2013‎ (UTC). (works using "subst:")

{{subst:unsigned| Felbryn|03:34, 17 May 2013‎}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Felbryn (talk • contribs) at 03:34, 17 May 2013‎ (UTC). (works using "subst")

Seems ok as long as you include "subst:" 75.37.19.141 04:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I'm reasonably sure it used to work without that... --Felbryn (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It did, but the substitution left the template code in so it was changed.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They're supposed to be subst:ed anyway, they're not meant to be transcluded in perpetuity. —Dr Ishmael 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The awesome thing about subst + the rewrite is that it doesn't matter if you use this template or {{Unsigned2}}, because they produce the same wiki code :D -Chieftain Alex 23:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Two contributions links if used for an IP.

E.g. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.121.71.53 (talk • contribs).

This seems a bit odd to me, should it format as

<small>—''The preceding [[Help:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]]) at {{{1}}} (UTC).</small>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.121.71.53 (talk) at XX:YY (UTC).

instead? -Chieftain Alex 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The #ifexist in there means that it also does this for any registered user that doesn't have a userpage. I would just get rid of the #ifexist, redlinks be damned. —Dr Ishmael 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I will resurrect this, is there any specific reason why the name (or IP) links to the contribution instead of the user page when it doesn't exist? If this is meant to be swapped out for a placed signature, I think it would be nice to have the name/ip link to that user page, and then the contribs link to the contributions. I know this is an anet wiki, but still could we be ever so slightly consistent? -Darqam 16:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(Thread necromancy! Heathen!)

Removed double contributions link. -Chieftain Alex 17:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Subst?

What does substitution serves here? It doesn't work with it and works fine (at least in my sandbox) without. MalGalad 22:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. You left it as a template, which obviously wouldn't work correctly.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to actually subst the {{subst:unsigned}} call itself to make it work. poke | talk 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That wasn't me.

Ok, after I ask a question, I realised the answer why do you use subst... Still, if it was used wrong, then it is not so obviously simple. I'm not a profi in this sphere yet, so I'll ask: there's no way to get rid of substituting template? Like, self-substitution or whatever. MalGalad 23:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The point is to subst it; if you don’t subst it, it looks bad. poke | talk 08:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissent

I know it's too late to debate this, but I still think that forcing substitution ruins this template. It makes it more difficult to use, impossible to tell where this template is actually used, and prevents any changes we make to it (such as formatting) from affecting previous uses. talk 16:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that people should actually sign their comments. We don’t have any reason to know where the template is used, or to change how it looks like (it hasn’t really received any substantial changes in 7 years). poke | talk 17:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)