Template talk:Unsigned IP/Archive 1

Problem with indented entries
I have noticed that the message ignores indentation when it shows on a new line. See Talk:Wi-Fi for an example. __meco 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Yah, please remove the linebreak between the noinclude and small. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugly substing
There is no consensus whether "unsigned" templates should be transcluded or subst'd. See an old discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_substitution/Archive_3 and also Subst. As a result, some people transclude template and some use subst:. Unfortunately, current version of template produces very ugly code when subst'd: This is because of this addition of named parameters, which was pretty much useless in the template with only 2 parameters. Also please check Subst — this is exactly what happens with this template. editprotected Please remove named parameters. Unfortunately it looks like first we'll have to find a bot owner to confirm that the template is almost never called with named parameters and correct where it's called. P.S. The situation is made much worse by some bot owners that prefer to use "the easy way" and simply subst "Unsigned" templates. See User talk:BetacommandBot (1) and User talk:BetacommandBot (2) (the bot stopped expanding templates since then) and current discussion at User_talk:Slakr (bot still makes hundreds of ugly edits each day) ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is still verification to do, then it isn't time to put up the editprotected tag. Save that for the last step when an admin can make the change immediately. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just finished verification, in approx. 2000 translcusion (see results at User:Alex Smotrov/z/UnsignedIP) there was only one with named parameters, which I fixed (bottom change in diff). Adding {editprotected} again ∴ Alex Smotrov 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To confirm, the goal is no named parameters at all as in user:CBM/Sandbox? Examples at User:CBM/Sandbox2. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks very good. Please make the change. Originally I also wanted to remove the  part as useless, but it turns out users sometimes do use the template without parameters (why? …); anyway, that part doesn't interfere with substing ∴ Alex Smotrov 05:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs improved documentation
editprotected This template should have better documentation. I am requesting that subpage    be created with     added to it, be added to the noinclude container on this template page, and that be removed from this template page. Following Template documentation. I will add the documentation to the subpage myself. Another registered user could have created the documentation subpage but this template page would have had to been edited by an administrator anyway. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - moved all existing documentation and category to subpage. Feel free to edit the subpage as needed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut and pasted usage documentation section from the top of talk page to /doc. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Documentation wording
Objection to this edit: When and why was it decided that "no User page should exist for anonymous ips"? On what policy page is that written? --DocumentN (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Text too small
editprotected

Please remove the  tag pair from this template; per discussion at Template talk:Unsigned. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant?
I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but what does this template do that doesn't? --BDD (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing extra: the difference is that it omits the link to the user page (those rarely exist for anon users, and when they do they often display a message suggesting indefinite block, such as ); in addition, it puts the link to the contribs page first instead of third. In both of these it is consistent with the result when the anon user signs using with four tildes - see, for example,, which the anon user signed properly. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a template that worked for both, though. 109.153.136.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft for discussion
User:Matt Fitzpatrick/Unsigned IP (diff as of this post)

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The   tag has been dropped in HTML5. I combined it with the italics tags as.
 * 2) There was some prior discussion here on accessibility, specifically, giving users more control over the font size. Because inline styles override user stylesheets, inline styles actually reduce user control. I replaced   with , so user stylesheets can modify the display.
 * 3) The 0.0.0.0 links may be causing confusion, as people have actually left messages on 0.0.0.0's talk page. The contribs page for 0.0.0.0 is empty and will remain that way for the foreseeable future (0.0.0.0 is a reserved IP address), and talk pages for nonexistent users are speedy deleted (CSD U2) and should not exist. I rewrote the logic to avoid making 0.0.0.0 links. I also removed the   tags since they no longer contain a link.

I haven't gotten any responses, but the edits would make this template's normal output more similar to Unsigned, so I believe the edits are uncontroversial. Just in case, I did additional testing on this test page, with no problems coming up.

Please edit the first line of this template as shown in this diff between the current template and the draft. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Looks like improvements to me. SiBr4 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2014
In the signature, the space between the opening dash and the word "Proceeding" should be non breaking, as is done for the similar template, Unsigned.

– voidxor (talk &#124; contrib) 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done GermanJoe (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem
There seems to be a problem with this template; it is producing bold text where it has been used. Regards, 194.74.238.137 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent documentation
According to the lead of the documentation, the difference between this template and is that  omits the (talk) link. But both of the examples show a (talk) link just like  would. —Salton Finneger (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it says "but omits the userpage link". The userpage is not the user's talk page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I suppose so. Thanks. —Salton Finneger (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Using a span wrapper
, I initially added a &lt;span&gt; element because I was working on the way the AfD Stats tool detects the unsigned family of templates, and a solution I was thinking about required a &lt;span&gt; element in each template. However, I ultimately went with a different solution that doesn't need one, so there's no issue with using a &lt;small&gt; element. Just wanted to provide an explanation for my original edit. APerson (talk!) 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016
Add "#top" in link to talk page for IP, such as talk, so that "talk" won't appear bold on the talk page of the IP if it is that IP's talk page. Would make it similar to the talk page link on Template:Unsigned, which has a "#top" in the talk page link. — MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp parameter
Should the same invocation of Module:Unsigned that Unsigned uses be added to this template? —Phil | Talk 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Default timestamp parameter
As I understand it, the timestamp parameter should show the time and date of the IP's comment. At present, substituting the template populates the timestamp parameter with the current UTC time and date, which will (almost?) never be the time and date of the IP's comment. Therefore, shouldn't the timestamp parameter be empty by default? It would be even better if substituting the template resulted in the following, which might encourage users to populate the timestamp parameter:



If substituting  works the same way (I have not checked it), please consider making the same change in that template.

Thanks.—Finell 20:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is empty by default.
 * → — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.0.1 (talk)
 * → — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.0.1 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that it uses the current time and date? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)