Template talk:Unsigned

subst
Why? -- Jdowland


 * Because the "unsigned" link was broken, and included templates wouldn't have updated themselves until the next time the page was edited. (Slight overkill, maybe, but as you said yourself, anon editors deserve more help than they get.)    Ryan W 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: this is no longer true because of the job queue.  There are other reasons for subst-ing on wikipedia, which don't apply to us: (1) their version includes a date stamp, which is no big loss at the speed we work; (2) the site has become so large that *most* templates must be subst-ed to reduce server load.  (IMHO the latter would be a wonderful problem to have.)  Therefore, unless someone has another argument for subst-ing in this case, I propose to remove that guideline.    Ryan W 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)