Template talk:Unsigned ip

wahts teh point of this subst junk except bloatin up the space it takes and being silly? 127.0.0.1 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If a change is made to the template, then everything that hasn't been "subst'd" will change along with the template. Should it be a rather large change, it could break already existing versions of it. -- Wandering Traveler 14:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

how about protectin it? i mean you could even sysopprotect it (so only sysops can edit it) sienc you dont need to edit it anymore and the disadanvtage of this subst crap is far biger 127.0.0.1 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been discussions in the past about doing that, but its been agree on that its more trouble than its worth. Its fine as is, subst: isn't too tedious to add. -- Wandering Traveler 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

it kind of defeats the purpose of having a templeat cuz with that you could just as well use gwwt or copy paste that code its not only unnecessaraly tedious but just taking space because of nothing 127.0.0.1 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a perfectly acceptable way, and a preferable way to use this template. It does NOT defeat the purpose of a template, unless of course you want to always type out the complete code. By eliminating the potential job queue bloat should someone (a vandal or an agreed upon change) change the template in the future, it makes for a better wiki function overall. -- Wyn talk 10:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume 127 is asking because I added a subst to his tag so... I've added subst tags because I was told that if too many templates are used on a page, the page may break (or something). Something to do with the server having to cache every time the page loads. ~Celestia 10:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)