Template talk:Refactored

Is this template designed to be subst:ed? If not, then the addition of it not being the original is informative and not cluttering the edit page, as it's still in template form, and doesn't really affect the rendered page, as it's obviously part of the signature there. If it is to be subst:ed then keep it the way it is. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be subst:ed. Like the unsigned template, I suspect a bot will eventually subst: uses of it from time to time, but by then it will mostly be buried in talk archives. Also, after a bit, we will have to protect this template just like we have {{unsigned}} protected. NoSeptember 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How does the timestamp parameter work? Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, answered on template page. Isn't the timestamp parameter unnecessary though. If they're gonna use the 5 ~'s, then why not just add it afterwards. It's easier than remembering which parameter it is, IMO. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just added a usage note. If you add ~~~~~ in the second parameter, it will add the date and time, as with {{unsigned}}. The third paramater is then if the users identifies under a pseudonym other than his username. Feel free to change as you see fit. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the 5 tildes, then it will tell you the time it was refactored, not the time of the comment. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]