Template talk:Undated

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No named args[edit]

I removed named arguments because they create a lot of unnecessary wikicode when the template is subst'd (example) and they are not used in any template trasclusions (I checked all 88 transclusions existing at the moment). This change is similar to this: Template_talk:UnsignedIP#Ugly_substing. Also removed outdated template documentation on this talk page ∴ Alex Smotrov 16:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Doc on a separate subpage[edit]

Well, I certainly did not expect this template to suddenly become protected... {{editprotected}} Well, then please move all the documentation back into Template:Undated/doc (simply overwriting that page outdated content) and then transclude /doc on the template page ∴ Alex Smotrov 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --ST47Talk·Desk 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remove this template[edit]

Unsigned comments alright, but undated comments should be legitimate. First, Wikimedia supports them itself with the three-tilde macro, second, they expose more working hour habits than is necessary to any purpose and nice to privacy. You can always look up a date from the history - having it readily available in the document only makes it easier for automatic harvesting. Please be respectful of contributor's choices in this case. Disable this template. --lynX —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 16 October 2007.

This template merely reflects the WP:SIG guideline and is no more an issue of privacy than is the page history, since it reflects the exact same information. Remember, nobody has to include the datestamp, as WP:SIG is a guideline, and you can always ignore it. If you would like to no longer have datestamping in signatures as a guideline, however, please discuss it over at the signatures guideline or at the village pump. --slakrtalk / 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Slakr is totally right. I'd also like to add that dating makes following long conversations where multiple users interject at earlier points in the thread much, much easier. Also User:SymlynX's argument against dating of "You can always look up a date from the history" is a nonsensical argument. By that same argument, why have signatures at all, since by analogy "you can always look up a comment from the history"? The reason is that looking through page history, especially through long page histories, is extremely inconvenient. —Lowellian (reply) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving documentation and template[edit]


Documentation is being updated. Please remove {{UnsignedTemplates}} {{template doc}} [[Category:Internal link templates|Undated]] from this page and replace it with


Please add this to the single parameter,

{{{1|<font color="red"><u>''an unspecified datestamp''</u></font>}}}

and remove the <includeonly> tags. (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, though at first glance I might expect the UTC time if the datestamp isn't provided. Gimmetrow 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar[edit]

There is a grammatical problem with this template. The example "—Preceding undated comment was added at 26 August 2007." is wrong. It is correct to use at for time but not for date. on should be used for dates. Jay (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most people will copy the time & date from the history/diff though, where the time is first. It's probably possible to alter the template to have "at" for time & date and "on" for just date, but I don't know how. If you do, you're an admin and can edit the template. Just make sure not to break SineBot's ability to use it. :)
Alternatively, you could just remove "at", if that's okay grammar. That's how most of the unsigned templates do it. Revelian (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit it either. The "at" cannot be removed as the sentence requires a preposition. Other unsigned templates have a preposition like "by" or "on". Jay (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no simple way to write the code to check whether the passed argument was a date or a time. The check would have to be incredibly complex because of the vast number of ways one can write the date or time.
I don't understand why anyone is manually typing in dates at all, rather than just copying the full timestamp, including the date, from the history.
That said, since apparently some editors are just putting in dates without times, I've gone ahead and replaced the "at" preposition with "on" instead.
Lowellian (reply) 05:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Or this template could be for date, and a new {{undated2}} can be for time and date? Jay (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, a second template isn't necessary given that the preposition has already been changed to "on"; also, a second template seems unnecessarily confusing. But if there was a second template, then this {{undated}} template should be for time and date (as that was its original intention), and the {{undated2}} should be for date. —Lowellian (reply) 06:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
on is incorrect to be used for time, there is no single preposition that can be used for both time and date. My suggestion would also have been to use this template for time and date and the new one for date, but the at to on change was already done, and I didn't want to reverse it. Jay (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "was" and "on", based on discussion at the ref desk. Now it is "—Preceding undated comment added 26 August 2007.". This was also the suggestion Revelian had given above. Jay (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Must be substituted?[edit]

Is the "must be" requirement for "subst:" correct? Normally, date related templates should be substituted, but in this case the date is a fixed parameter. Or is there another issue here?--Farry (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that doesn't seem right. What is the rationale for required substitution? —Lowellian (reply) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

generates incorrect span syntax[edit]

Hi. The template generates text beginning

<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">

which (I think) is syntactically incorrect. It appears to be creating strange effects when used by Sinebot. Sorry I can't be more help - this isn't my area of expertise. --Stfg (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving problems[edit]

The full stop after the date prevents MiszaBot II from archiving comments tagged with this template. Unless anyone objects, I will edit this, hopefully allowing the archiving to work. --xensyriaT 14:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I'd noticed before threads skipped by one or another of the MiszaBots, didn't occur to me that it was the dot. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


If {{unsigned}} puts a space after the mdash, why should this template not have one too? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The alternative viewpoint is to ask whether the space in {{unsigned}} should be removed. MOS:EMDASH says "Do not use spaced em dashes." --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The bit in the MOS that I prefer to read is "use one or the other consistently in an article". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That refers to the next two subheadings: "Unspaced em dash" and "Spaced en dash". Neither of these is "Spaced em dash". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Surely the one is the "Unspaced em dash" and the other is the "Spaced en dash" given as the two options in MOS:DASH though? I've thought a bit about the presence/absence of spaces in these templates before; from what I can see, when they're included, they're there because the templates are generally added after a space, e.g.:
random comment. {{subst:unsigned|example|20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)}}
random comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by example (talkcontribs) 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If there's no space in the template, then it might look odd having a space before but not after. If the template is added without a space before it looks slightly less odd, as the space is in <small></small> tags (the space in the template before the dash—that would be removed if doubled—also solves this in a way that isn't possible if we wanted to guarantee a non-spaced em dash). Not sure the MOS would really apply to talk pages, but I personally think it's relatively important to have all of the unsigned templates (see box) consistent, one way or the other, and at the moment {{unsigned}} uses a non-breaking space following the dash, but lacks the "backup space" before it (which also seems to guarantee the spaces on both sides of the dash are the same size). Would also be great to have these templates auto-substituted by bot (there's a list if I remember correctly, but it requires admin rights to edit). ‑‑xensyriaT 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted[edit]

Please add Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted - not knowing it should be, I just transcluded a whole bunch of unsigned templates, and it would be nice if the bots knew to substitute it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Request withdrawn, I was mistaken. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)