Template talk:Undated

Template:Undated

We have {{unsigned}}, but no template for undated comments so I created one on User:SHB2000/Undated. I really don't think there is any drawback to using this template and is quite a no-brainer to use, so here it is... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. I'm not sure there is a frequent need to use this template, but I see no reason to not have it in case someone uses the wrong number of tildes to sign a comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not just paste in the date? Under what circumstances is it better to go to history page, copy the timestamp, and put it into the template, instead of just putting it straight into wikitext?

The "– unsigned comment by" formatting feels like a badge of shame instead of a helpful contribution. Why do the worse thing a more complicated way? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Because why make things needlessly complicated instead of standardising it across the site? Other wikis also use this template just fine, so not having this template is more complicated for people who are familiar with this template elsewhere. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This template is only on a tiny fraction of the wikis (about 2%). It's not at the French, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Italian, or German-language Wikipedias. It's not at any of the Wikivoyages. Anyone who does much cross-wiki work will not expect to find this minor template here, and will be accustomed to fixing these problems manually, because fixing an undated comment manually is actually the standard way across the wikis. It is important to remember that "the English Wikipedia's way" is not "the standard way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed that this was the enwiki way. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I did. This template is only used with any significant frequency at the English and Russian Wikipedias. Enwiki has used it the most total, and ruwiki uses it the most on a per-active-editor calculation. The template exists at some other wikis, but barely gets used (often 10 to 100 uses total) at any wiki except for those two Wikipedias.

Given how popular the Reply tool is, there are also many fewer unsigned or undated comments than there were in years past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, hopefully this template won't have to be used, but it can still happen and that's why we have {{unsigned}} (also, I'd rather not edit another user's comment, even if it were just adding a timestamp, which I see as bad practice in general). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As for whether to use it at all, I have seen editors feel embarrassed by the public notice that they had a typo in their signature (three tildes produces the name links without the date). I have never seen an editor who was unhappy that someone unobtrusively fixed it. This is what I meant above about the "badge of shame". Why should we risk embarrassing people over a typo? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As somebody who has occasionally typed the wrong number of tildes, I would much rather that it was just fixed. This is particularly the case if it is a few days before I next have time to do minor edits. AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Because some people including myself feel very uncomfortable fixing someone else's messages. If a user does not like it, they can always mend it themselves. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the important thing is what the person who did the typo feels. I have a hard time imaging somebody feeling bad about the timestamp being added in the standard form without the "badge of shame". In other kinds of editing messages there is nearly always the risk that what you write isn't what them meant to say – here that risk is absent. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

At least why not give users a choice between using the template and fixing it entirely? That almost entirely negates the "concern". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it does not. If somebody gets upset by either, having the choice means they will sometimes get upset. Not having the choice will mean that people get accustomed to the only available option and thus don't get upset. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Except that doesn't exactly address my concern of it being commonplace on many other larger wikis; we'll never get to determine what is the only available option. If you are so opposed, you may as well have a case for deleting {{unsigned}}. However, acting as if a subjective issue was objective is unhelpful to say the least. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

SHB, it is not commonplace at "many" other larger wikis. AFAICT it is commonplace at "exactly two" other larger wikis: Russian and English Wikipedias. If there is another wiki where you think it is in common use, please tell me the name of that wiki. For example, it exists at Commons, where it has been used just 42 times ever. I wouldn't count that as "being commonplace", but maybe you think 42 uses at a site with 100 million files and 12 million users should count as commonplace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It is still used on Meta-Wiki, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikinews and the like, and the reason why you do not see this template being used much is because, surprise, surprise, forgetting to sign your posts (entirely) is rare. Who knew?! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgetting to sign posts isn't rare; I've probably corrected ~200 myself.

Meta-Wiki has used that template 104 times. Wikidata has used it once. The English Wikitionary has used it four times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)