Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Automatically wrap signatures with span class?

  • Should signatures automatically be wrapped with a "span class" (alternatively, Should an option be provided to supply the wrapper)? –xenotalk 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is actually an idea inspired by a recent situation where a user was distracted by another user's signature. The latter user helpfully added a span id to their signature, so the complainant could modify it with personal css. If we automatically wrapped all signatures with <span class="sig">[sig here]</span>, this would be a universal solution to the problem of distracting signatures. Of course, it adds 22 characters so that's a bit of a downside. Even if we don't decide to do this across-the-board, we could probably write in encouragement and instructions on how to wrap your sig in span tags so other users are able to eliminate certain elements like shadows, backgrounds, bolding, etc. Thoughts? –xenotalk 14:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would probably suggest a middle ground between the two suggestions: add an option to do this in preferences, without reducing the allowed length of the signature. That way, it wouldn't make all signatures 22 characters longer, but it'd give the option for people to do this without sacrificing characters from their signature, in order to help others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Great idea. –xenotalk 14:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to see whatever script replaces ~~~~ with a user's sig changed to wrap that span around it. Then the Preferences change could be simpler- add an option to disable HTML in signatures. Obviously this wouldn't affect old sigs (without assistance from a bot), but it would certainly take the wind out of the "BAN CUSTOM SIGS" argument. --King Öomie 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a better place to make this proposal to gain some more attention? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is probably the right place, but we could publicize it at WP:VPR and perhaps throw up an {{RFCtag}}. –xenotalk 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added an {{RFCtag}}. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on response, a bugzilla: may need to be filed as well. –xenotalk 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Dunno if we're already discussing this (Bugzilla?) but why not just have a box in preferences? If you don't want to see custom signatures, check the box, and your wiki-experience will configured to simply display ~~~~ as N419BH(talk) instead of N419BH. Is that what we're discussing? N419BH 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the issue with that is that ~~~~ substs your signature onto the page: without an ided span tag surrounding it, your idea couldn't be implemented either. With the idea Xeno and myself are putting forward, that could be achieved with a labelled span wrapper and a bit of custom javascript. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yeah then, agree totally. Frankly I think custom signatures are a security measure. It's a good deal easier to fake User(talk) than it is to fake a custom one. But if one is distracting to one person it should certainly be an option to hide individual custom sigs or all custom sigs. N419BH 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change in principle, but have two queries. First, would it not lead to a weakening of WP:SIG's effects ("If you don't like my bright pink flashing sig, then just hide it,")? And would the span-tags not add significantly to everyone's character-count? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Entirely obnoxious sigs would still be subject to the policy, this is more targeted at those sigs that are kindof on the line where only some people find them bothersome.
  2. It would add 22 characters, the suggestion made above to counter this problem was that users could opt-in to the span wrappers and that they would not count towards the 255 limit. –xenotalk 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: based on concerns raised by User:Jack Merridew I've replaced "span id" (which is only supposed to occur once per page, per HTML guidelines) with "span class". This adds three characters unfortunately =]. –xenotalk 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
and I've edit conflicted with you; posting anyway. Most of my objection is broader. Jack Merridew 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not on technical grounds. We can not be dropping duplicate IDs into talky pages as this is proposing; 'id's are specifically intended to be unique on a page; if any form of this is advanced, it must be done with a "class"; this is the core reason that both attributes exist.

Assuming the above is accepted, I still have concerns about bazillions of extra spans snotting up the wiki, even if optional per a checkbox. I occasionally use silly sigs; will be signing this with one, for effect, but I'm very down on flashy sigs when used for each post.

I tried pointing a user with a poor sig at this sort of approach; he was uninterested. This is a common reaction from those who just don't get it. See:

I also dropped a comment about this issue to User:Giftiger wunsch here.3rd frag of diff; archive He's using an ID in his sig and may be who Xeno's referring to. I expect he simply didn't see it, and I was going to get around to visiting his talk page about it; then Xeno poked me re this. This sort of usage of ID breaks the validation of every talky page, including this one.

I'm down on all this shite because a) it is attention seeking; even if that's not a user's intent, garish sigs draw they eye giving undue weight to the posts above them (people are hard-wired to notice the different; it may be food, or a threat, or worth mating with), b) it snots up the edit box with heaps of code that is distracting to everyone, c) sig customization is a vector for all sort of bad code getting into the database. Most people can't code for shite, and they leave things unclosed, leaking, etc. MediaWiki has also change some the parsing it does over time, and I've seen old threads where these changes have caused old sig code to start having adverse impact on pages that they did not have on earlier versions of MediaWiki. I'd have to dig a while to find examples. nb: Liquid threads are coming, and I'd have to look at the sig issues that entails.

So, a class could be used in this proposal, but that is still moar crap in edit boxes. I think a better solution is to simply ban all but a few stock sigs. With WP:POPUPS, we have little trouble finding talk pages or contrib logs. Major RfC, to do this, I expect. It's time. I know that many use sig customization in tasteful and reasonable ways, but we've all seen the ludicrous ones. This mechanism implicitly encourages immaturity in some users

If any of this is pushed through, it would be <span class="mwUserSig">...</span> (or some-such class name) which would allow people shut off all the shite via their user style sheet (not that many know how; most would need lots of help. And for what? Flash).

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Funny how many people with absolutely disgusting signatures participated in this discussion. Anyway, I think the proposal is turning a problem on its head. Signatures with bold or background or border or bigger font should simply be prohibited. If you want to see those in your sig then wrap it in unique css class and apply css code to your personal css file, so only you can see it in all its "greatness". Don't force me to do CSS trick just to read the discussion. The current situation in enwiki is ridiculous. Of course, I'm just a voice in the wilderness, just ignore me. — AlexSm 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO one subscript and one superscript per sig is still tolerable, while User.0.0.0.1 certainly is not. I'm fine with sparing sub/sup usage, e.g. (talk) and (contribs) as it's often done, but readers with below-average vision would prefer at least the sub/sup parts deitalicized.
And there could (should?) be a measure as simple as a checkbox which cancels all fancy formatting (e.g. big/small, italic, colors, background, bounding rectangles, whathaveyou) to make WP more enjoyable for the vision-impaired.
I do not oppose fancy formatting (e.g. A_p3rson, GiftigerWunsch or Chowbok above), neither do I appreciate it too much. Neither do I take offense by a size-3 Jeff G. Rational: "Jeff G." is acceptably short even in size 3. I would never change my sig to bigsize-3 though, as mine is already a bit on the long side without big / size-3. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sinebot Bug

I had edited a talk page, ending the discussion with: ~~(~~) (Without Brackets), yet still Sinebot saw it as unsigned. | G.Light 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Your signature must contain a link to either your user page or your user talk page, and it contains neither one. Please change your signature to contain at least one such link. — Gavia immer (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Signatures Guideline and SPA tags

currently the SPA tag when attached to a users comment will take away the persons signature, claiming that they did not sign their post. This seems to fly in the face of the signatures guideline on this page. Please see the latest edit request of the SPA tag for further details Template_talk:Spa. Am I wrong here, or is removing a signature to put in place something that says not signature was ever there a blatant disregard for the spirit of these guidelines? --MATThematical (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't clear how this relates to editing this page, I am suggesting we add something like, you should under no circumstances tag a signed comment as unsigned, and you should also never remove someone else's signature. The above is an example of this type of behavior through SPA tagging. --MATThematical (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I just commented at Template talk:Spa#Another Edit Request. I do not understand the problem: you are supposed to add {{subst:spa|Example}} after the signature (if a signature was given), or add {{subst:spa|Example|03:07, 14 March 2011}} (using your timestamp for an example) if no signature. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to relax the rule on transcluded signatures

A discussion has been opened at the Village Pump. SpinningSpark 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I sign my messages with four tildes, but my signature appears in black ink as if I had typed it. It does not show up as a hyperlink. I haven't a clue what the problem is, but I would appreciate help in resolving it. Thank you. EnglishTea4me 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the your preferences page, if you removed the wikilink? mabdul 11:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

nutshell?

Why is this page a nutshell? Isn't this banner placed here wrong? mabdul 11:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Linebreaks

One user raised the issue of another user using a <br /> tag to place his signature on a seperate line. Personally I think there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, LiquidThreads does this by default. I would like to ammend WP:CUSTOMSIG to reflect this:

  • Avoid line breaks (<br /> tags) in the middle of your signature. Using <br /> to place your signature on a seperate line is allowed.

Thoughts? — Edokter (talk) — 12:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Liquidthreads would be accepted here? We have kittens on user talk pages, so I suppose a full and uncontrollable chat system might appeal to some, but others think we should focus on building the encyclopedia, and disruptive "look at me" signatures are not helpful. There is no reason for a signature to be on a separate line. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ on this point. Signatures are traditionally placed on their own line, but for some reason not in Wikipedia. I find myself often scanning someone's post just to see who wrote it, which can take a considerable time. If signatures are always on the left, one can see in one blink of an eye who wrote it. This isn't about "look at me!", it merely enhances readability. — Edokter (talk) — 12:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this "considerable time" you mention somewhere in the region of 1-4 seconds? Because if so, it can't be so much of an inconvenience that it's worth lengthening pages so significantly. I oppose your proposal. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 12:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
1-4 seconds per post adds up to a minute or longer really fast when reading long threads. And I see it as uncluttering the page, not lengthening it; talk pages are crowded enough as they are. — Edokter (talk) — 13:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
And I see it as uncluttering the page, not lengthening it – you don't see how adding an extra line to every single comment on a page would lengthen that page? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, how is that a problem as opposed to having to read through a cluttered mountain of text? — Edokter (talk) — 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did you say that you don't think adding an extra line to every single comment on a page would lengthen that page? (And in answer to your question, I genuinely don't see the difficulty. Once you've finished reading a comment, the very next text after that comment ends is the signature. What's so difficult and time-consuming?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At least with the "clutter", the signature clearly designates who made the comment. If we allowed linebreaks in signatures, it will also lead to signatures standing alone on the left. If you use a widescreen monitor like me, the difference between the signature's placement and the end of the comment are much more annoying than having it after the comment. If you are interested to know who made a comment, you usually read it first and thus know it when you reached the end of it. I somehow fail to see how often the situation arises that you want to know who wrote something without caring what they wrote... Regards SoWhy 13:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(←) When I start reading a comment, I always look who wrote it first. This helps place it into context. In any case, this is a matter of preference, and I think it should not be disallowed or even discouraged. — Edokter (talk) — 14:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What Liquidthreads might or might not do when (or if) implemented isn't entirely germane to this discussion. That said, what Liquidthreads almost certainly will do – and what were asking people to do now – is place user identities/signatures in a consistent spot relative to each comment. Experienced editors on Wikipedia expect signatures to appear at the end of comments, not below them. Whenever I see one of Ohm's law's comments, I tend to run through a three-step thought process:
  1. That's odd, this comment is unsigned;
  2. that's odd, there's a floating signature with no comment;
  3. Ohhhh.....
I'll freely acknowledge adding an extra line to every comment doesn't significantly most editors these days; we've got our massive LCD monitors with acres (or hectares) of real estate and millions of pixels. On the other hand, it does harm the editors who use lower-resolution devices to participate in the project: older hardware, tablets, netbooks, smartphones. Unnecessary line breaks mean more scrolling and less of the discussion visible at any one time, which complicates and discourages participation. To sum up:
  • Is the misplaced signature with line break deceptive or particularly disruptive? No, not really. Is it something that slows down or inconveniences other editors? Yes, a bit.
  • Should Ohm's law be compelled to remove the break from his signature? No, this isn't a severe enough inconvenience to warrant a block or other sanction. If he wants to brazen it out, then when push comes to shove there isn't really anything that the community is going to do to force him to change. (Other editors may, however, be less likely to be flexible in response to his requests in the future.)
  • Would it be courteous and in the best traditions of collaborative editing for Ohm's law to take out the line break? Yes, absolutely. It costs him nothing to do so, and it improves the experience for (at least a subset of) his colleagues.
We don't need to have a rule for everything, and we don't need to mindlessly and slavishly enforce every rule that we do have. Wikipedia is a flexible, open, collaborative community which works best when every editor is willing to bend a little bit to make things better for the project and for the other volunteers with whom he works. The first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note this discussion apparently took place simultaneous to this AN thread on the same topic. That discussion is linked for reference as it contains a number of points that may not be discussed above. Nonetheless, the result there was that it was not an admin issue and discussion should take place here. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigs are meant to help the encyclopedia, not promote individuality--the user page is a better place to be fanciful. I've always thought plain characters with perhaps some non-dramatic font or color variation is more appropriate. (I reluctantly accept non-latin, but only because unified log-in requires it.) DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly the point. They're supposed to help people quickly identify who wrote something, without having to go to the page history. The entire new line does little more than give prominence to someone's signature and there hasn't been a good reason made for its use yet. Bereanhunter cited a technical complaint, but someone pointed out in that discussion how he could solve that without forcing a new line every time. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Berean_Hunter.27s_Signature. I can't see a single positive to allowing this, and yet there are several negatives.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion to effectively modify this guideline

Here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Signatures that don't contain the exact username

Following up from a post I made at AN, I'd like to open a discussion on signatures that don't contain the username. This includes signatures that stylize the username using abbreviation, symbols, or foreign alphabet characters (e.g. Greek letters replacing the Latin letters of the username).

The problem I see with such signatures, although arguably minor, is that it makes it a bit more difficult searching e.g. a talk page to see whether the user has left any comment there. When one comment by the user has been found, other comments by that same user can of course easily be found by copypasting the signature in the browser search field. But finding the first comment is not as easy, and requires either carefully looking over the entire talk page, or going to the page history.

Imho, while it is not a big issue, it is also a minor request that signatures at least also contain the full exact username. That's not to say that signatures can't additionally contain stylized variants of all sorts (using e.g. foreign characters etc), but signatures that are exclusively made up of something other than the exact username in place of the exact username should imho be advised against by the guideline.

I propose adding the following (or something along those lines) to Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature:

Signatures should include the full exact username in plain characters.

--213.196.218.167 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You can easily find comments by a certain user either using the page history or by searching the page's wikisource. I oppose further rules about signatures, especially rules that are significantly more strict than what we have allowed for many, many years. Especially now that most short usernames are taken, I don't think requiring the exact username string is a good idea. I actually enjoy it when people have a recognizable and unique signature like, say, User:Ihcoyc, who has signed as "Smerdis of Tlön" since forever. —Kusma (t·c) 05:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I wrote, nothing speaks against allowing users to additionally include other things in their signature. E.g. "Smerdis of Tlön (Ihcoyc)" or "Smerdis of Tlön (User:Ihcoyc)" would be perfectly fine imho.
You can easily find comments by a certain user either using the page history or by searching the page's wikisource -- I can. But searching a page history and especially a page's source is not very intuitive for new and less tech-savvy users. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If we want to help new users, we should remove rules, not add any new ones. —Kusma (t·c) 10:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Mensch, Kusma. You are grossly oversimplifying the situation. E.g., you are entirely ignoring the fact that the are written rules and unwritten rules. In principle, I completely agree that we should have as few rules as possible. But many written rules are necessary simply to counter the unwritten rules that people tend to make up when left to their own devices, cargo cult- and hypercorrection style. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing this as a major problem. Searching is trivial if you just open the page in the edit window or use the page history for the purposes noted. The extra bit of minor inconvenience to do that does not itself justify any additional instruction creep which would amount to making illegal a not-insubstantial number of signatures which users in very good standing have been using for a very long time without prior problems. The rationale provided by the OP is somewhat compelling, but IMHO it is not compelling enough to overcome the effects of enacting and enforcing such a rule, the inconvenience of which would MORE than outweigh the gain in convenience by creating it in the first place. Rules whose enforcement creates greater problems then they ones they are trying to correct are bad rules, and IMHO this would fit into that category. --Jayron32 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the CREEP argument getting old? Most of the time, it is being used by people who prefer their own, made-up rules over a consistent, sensible approach. CREEP is no argument by itself. Sensible rules are sensible rules, senseless rules are senseless rules. Like most anything on Wikipedia, this should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
would amount to making illegal -- "Illegal"? I'd say the guideline should "advise users to include their username in Latin characters for the convenience of their fellow users".
which users in very good standing have been using for a very long time without prior problems -- Without prior problems, or just without anyone having raised the issue before? Also, same as with Kusma's point above, those users could keep their current signatures, just adding their plain username. Nothing of value would be lost. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not consistent, nor does it need to be. It is getting less wiki and more rule-based from day to day, which is really sad, and makes it a far less attractive place to participate in. In things that do not matter much (everything that is not visible in article space), we should be as liberal as possible. Prohibiting clever signatures does not improve the encyclopedia, and takes away a tiny little bit of fun. But if you insist, we can create Wikipedia:Signatures for discussion where I will vote "Allow" on any clever signature and "don't care" on any color-using one. —Kusma (t·c) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting very wikiphilosophical now, but I do happen to have a strong, and differing opinion on that very issue you're raising: Fun. I believe the only valid form of fun to be had on Wikipedia, the only fun we should be having, is the fun of working on an encyclopedic project. People who prefer the fun of socializing (think guest book userpages), or the fun of any form of ego-polishing, should not be encouraged. Just my own opinion, and I believe this aspect is not related to the core issue I'm trying to raise here. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Modified support - I don't think this is an unreasonable proposal, if tweaked slightly. Naming policy already says that while non-Latin characters are fine in usernames, such users are encouraged to use a Latin form in their signature. This guideline gives the example User:Παράδειγμα who signs as Παράδειγμα/Paradigma. The intent is to try to ensure that a user is identifiable with characters typable on a typical English keyboard.
I suggest this proposal be tweaked to be a logical inverse of the existing recommendation. While the existing one suggests people with non-Latin usernames should use Latin characters in their name for the convenience of other users, I believe this proposal should recommend that users intending to use non-Latin characters in their signature should also include standard Latin characters. The thread on AN that led me here mentioned User:Medeis, who signs as μηδείς. I don't think it would be an unreasonable recommendation that, for the convenience of other editors, he might modify his signature to read μηδείς (Medeis) or similar, and I would support this being a part of the guideline recommendations. Non-Latin characters can be confusing and difficult to work with for many users. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Yes, that does make a lot of sense. And yes, Medeis' signature is what led me to AN and then here. Non-Latin characters should be supplemented by the Latin character version of the username. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, Wikipedia:Username policy already says: If your username or signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it.
And about WP:UN#Non-English usernames it says that [...] scripts of non-Latin languages (such as Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, Greek or Japanese) are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia, and sometimes the characters may not appear correctly. To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature.
So this proposal is more about making WP:Signature more consistent with what WP:UN already says.
However, there are also other cases (of, yes, very established users), like that of User:Ohms law, who signs as "V = IR (Talk • Contribs)", which is typable on an English keyboard, but also not very convenient for other users. A signature is not the best place to be witty imho. In all, I'm not sure how best to go about this or where exactly to draw the line, which is why I am especially thankful for constructive comments like TechnoSymbiosis'. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Good luck 213—I think your suggestion is great and would have been helpful if implemented several years ago. Unfortunately, people are used to being witty or outrageous in their sigs now, and a proposal for change is unlikely to succeed. (By "outrageous", I am referring to some sigs with blatantly look at me highly contrasting blocks of color or other eye candy.) Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can see a real problem with further Balkanization of our projects from this. I work on several multi-lingual wikisource works and occasionally drift into other subdomains of wp. I work with editors who have Greek signatures because they edit in ancient Greek. If other projects applied the equivalent rule, I would need a Greek signature on el, a Cyrillic signature on ru, an Arabic signature on ar, a Persian signature on fa, a Chinese signature, a Japanese signature, etc. etc. etc. Fortunately, I have never been told that my Latin-derived signature is a problem anywhere else. Other than signatures that move or flash, or show up in box that is the same color of blue as the handy script makes admin sigs, I have no problem with anyone's signature. If you want to know if their username is the same as their sig, you simply mouseover it, click on it, or use a popup script.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Your reasoning is faulty. The general rule which imho should apply to all Wikis is that the signature should include the username: whatever characters the username contains, should appear in the signature. Your Latin-character signature isn't a problem on any other language project, because your username is still in Latin characters, and your signature contains the same exact letters as your username. --213.196.209.20 (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What I'm basically saying is that the signature should include the username as it would appear if the signature was left in the default Mediawiki format. What's the big deal about that? I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to add flashy colors or random words or non-Latin characters. Just that the signature should also include the username, plain and simple. I honestly don't understand the resistance to this. Is it just inertia, or are there actually valid reasons that speak against a simple, straightforward and sensible rule like this? --213.196.209.20 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    The difficulty is that people are used to doing things the way they do, and there is a widely held (and valid) view that there has to be a really good reason related to improving the encyclopedia to justify any significant disruption—compelling lots of people who are used to their signatures to change them would lead to a lot of disruption. We should just be grateful that avatars and animations are outlawed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Signatures that do not represent a registered username are confusing, and lead to further complications when trying to untangle the complexities of sockpuppet research. Likewise, in the en.Wki, signatures and/or user names that only use non Roman characters are are confusing, are used for showing off, and do not demonstrate an mature aproch to collaborative encyclopedia building. User names and signatures in the en.Wiki should use characters that are directly avalable from the standard layout of any keyboard that is broadly based on the Roman alphabet. To insist that we should use help programs to insert characters, or copy and paste unpronounceable and hence non memorisable words is an insult to the work and engagement of regular voluntary editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    As logins are shared between all language Wikimedia projects, most usernames are unreadable on most projects. —Kusma (t·c) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    As far as I know, there is a method to type (using a standard keyboard) a sigma on all computers running Windows or Mac (I'm not sure about Linux-based though; I haven't tried). --Σ talkcontribs 03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment; I personally think some common sense goes into this; I don't think Kudpung's signature or mine cause any problems. I also don't see any particular issue with (for instance) Ponyo's signature (1 person opposed her RfA over it, and that view did not get any support). I don't personally mind hovering over a link for a moment, but I also understand Kudpung's point of view. If we do add something, I'd suggest we allow longtime users, such as Ihcoyc, to keep using their signatures; it doesn't really make sense to force him to change his signature after using it since 2003. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a zh-N editor (EN-4), but I chose to edit under Penwhale because not all computers I use had multi-language support at the time. Therefore, recommend some sort of Latin-char-set identifiers to be used in a signature (so they can be referred to in case language support is unavailable) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and further comment: I note that User:とある白い猫 (formerly known as User:WhiteCat, has no latin-derived characters in either their signature or their name. I have no problem with it and, although if there were several active editors with Japanese signatures I might get them confused, I know who this is and I can always click (or use popups) and quickly find out for sure. Notably, that user changed their name from a completely latin one. Taken to it's logical extreme this proposal would require us to use only characters on a standard English keyboard, which would exclude all accents. My office PC won't even allow me to type an umlaut in a text editor like the wiki-edit window; I have to use a word processing program and then copy-paste; but I don't support any such restriction. Fortunately, on my mac at home, I can type in most languages with a single mouse click. I oppose any restriction beyond the ones already in place regarding avatars, etc.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    And if you really needed to refer to とある白い猫 but couldn't type the actual kanji, it wouldn't be that hard to type "toarushiroineko" or just "White Cat"; people would generally know who you're talking about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
How would you refer to him if you didn't know how to pronounce or translate his name? On some systems (like the one I'm on here), that name displays as boxes because the extended font information for Japanese isn't available, so I wouldn't have even the slightest clue on how to refer to the editor in question. The situation would be even worse if there were two or more editors each with 6-character names that I don't have language packs installed for, because I'd have to click on every signature to load up their userpage or talk page and use that to differentiate them. If his signature was 'とある白い猫 (WhiteCat)' instead, I'd at least have something to go by visually.
I have nothing against non-Latin characters in signatures, and I have nothing against non-Latin characters making up the entirety of a username. We do have policies against misleading signatures like the person who used ~~~~ as his full signature, so I don't see that asking for something at least readable (even if not pronounceable or understandable) to typical English users on the English Wikipedia is unreasonable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is actually contradicting the other proposal linked in the section below. It would be amusing if two contradicting proposal are approved simultaneously. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolute Opposition: Some signatures are intended to make a point; For example, MINE. (Comparing Wikipedia to the Weekly World News is hardly new, I’m afraid; I’d love to claim credit for it, but that would be disingenuous and dishonest.) Others are simplifications; Others serve the OWNERS purpose. If someone wants to be known as “Mr Jackass” even though his legal name is Jerry SMITH and his username is Joe BLOW, well that’s his own problem. It doesn’t matter is Jerry SMITH is an attorney at law and medical doctor specializing in legal reviews on medical ethics matters. It matters how he wants you to think of him.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Template for user talk page

I was wondering if there was a template to put on user's talk pages that cites the guidelines about signing posts on all talk pages. I read through this page and didn't find any mention of it, but if it exists, I think it would be a good idea to have it mentioned in the "dealing with unsigned comments" section. If such a template doesn't exist, I'd be happy to create one. I found this a pretty jarring omission, so if anyone knows of such a template, please link here (I'll watch this page). VanIsaacWS 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sinebot usually does a good job of notifying users (although perhaps the message left by Sinebot is too complex because it is often ignored!). It adds {{Uw-tilde}} to the user's talk if they make three or more unsigned comments in a 24 hour period (according to Sinebot's user page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's the problem. On a page with frequent contributions, like WP:ANI, sinebot isn't fast enough, but people should be able to include that template manually. I think it should be added to the "dealing with unsigned comments" section, that's all. VanIsaacWS 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be great. Also adding a section how to enable sinebot for users with many (I believe it was 80edits+) again. I know there is somewhere a template how to add this, but I forgot where and how to use it ^^ mabdul 05:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) similar to this request with the explanation: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Whether_article_Talk_pages_are_auto-signed mabdul 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
When I looked really closely, I guess there is a mention of the UW-tilde template already in there. I'm going to put a wikimarkup box on the page, so it is actually visible. VanIsaacWS 06:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)  Done If anyone wants to change my contrib, please feel free. VanIsaacWS 06:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done I went ahead and added a new section about how to reenable the automatic SineBot's mechanism. mabdul 10:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

SQL report of accounts violating guidelines

-- 2> /dev/null; date; echo '
/* User signature conformance checker
 * Checks nickname and fancysig fields in a users preferences.  Accounts matching
 * any banned code can be notified by bot or manually.  More sphonisticate checks,
 * like a text length limit, can be done with REGEXP.
 *
 * Run time: 15 min <SLOW_OK>
 */
SELECT
  user_name AS "User name",
  user_editcount AS "Edit count",
  EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM recentchanges WHERE rc_user_text=user_name AND rc_namespace%2=1 LIMIT 1) AS "Active",
  EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM ipblocks WHERE ipb_user=user_id AND ipb_expiry="infinity") AS "Blocked",
  nick.up_value AS "Signature"
FROM user
JOIN user_properties AS fncy ON fncy.up_user=user_id AND fncy.up_property="fancysig"
JOIN user_properties AS nick ON nick.up_user=user_id AND nick.up_property="nickname"
WHERE /* Use CAST(...) for case-insensitive searches */
   nick.up_value LIKE "%[[Image:%"
OR nick.up_value LIKE "%[[File:%"
OR (nick.up_value LIKE "%{{%" AND CAST(nick.up_value AS CHAR CHARACTER SET utf8)
    COLLATE utf8_general_ci NOT LIKE "%{{subst:%")
HAVING Active=1 and Blocked=0
-- OR nick.up_value LIKE "%<br%"
-- OR nick.up_value LIKE "%<font%" /* <font> is gone in HTML5 */
;-- ' | sql -r enwiki_p; date;

232 users use an images or an unsubstituted template in their signature and 26 of them made an edit in the past 30 days. — Dispenser 17:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which ones? --Jayron32 17:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Active image based signatures
Aaron Walden (talk · contribs) 2028 Aaron Walden
Adrruiz (talk · contribs) 52 adrruiz \\(talk)
Sobreira (talk · contribs) 2974 Sobreira (parlez)
Yorkshire Phoenix (talk · contribs) 2009 Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county
Superzohar (talk · contribs) 4631 Superzohar Talk
Philg88 (talk · contribs) 11432 â–º Philg88 â—„ talk
Plinio Cayo Cilesio (talk · contribs) 102 Pliniochaaaaaaaaaaan!!! (Discussion)
Riemogerz (talk · contribs) 2 riemogerz talk
You may wish to also request a database report for this. — Dispenser 06:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature template transclusion

I understand that, per WP:SIG#NT, it is forbidden to transclude templates into a users signature. However, today, I thought about it, and thought that this code might be acceptable:

{{User:LikeLakers2/sig}} <span style="display:none;">[[User:LikeLakers2|LikeLakers2]] ([[User talk:LikeLakers2|talk]])</span>

Assuming that my signature template in my userspace includes a link to my userpage and/or user talk page (and/or contributions page), wouls this kind of signature be allowed? This would allow for SineBot to still recognise my signature as being there, even though the links are not actually visible.

Another idea is this:

{{subst:User:LikeLakers2/sig}} <span style="display:none;">[[User:LikeLakers2|LikeLakers2]] ([[User talk:LikeLakers2|talk]])</span>

or

{{subst:User:LikeLakers2/sig}}

Still assuming that I still include the nessecary links, this could allow for perhaps some use of parsers, while not draining the (almost limitless, if we even cared about server resource usage on Wikipedia) server resources to change every "transclusion" of it when I change User:LikeLakers2/sig.

Again, just something I thought up, and I was wondering if it would be allowed, and if so, how. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Every action at Wikipedia should be aimed at building the encyclopedia or at building the community that builds the encyclopedia. Including text that does not display merely to satisfy Sinebot does not seem helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Substitution of signature templates is allowed, as far as I know. Regarding transclusion, if a user signed with a template often enough, vandalising the signature template would stealthily vandalise thousands of pages with one edit, and both the vandal edit and revert would cause unnecessary strain on the servers. →Στc. 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. Transclusion is technically allowed everywhere but signatures should be developed in the user preferences. From there, they will be automatically applied. nevertheless, it is strongly recommended that signatures follow the policies and guidelines.The main reasons are: readability, signatures that accurately reflect the username, signatures that are pronouncable and can be consigned to memory, signatures that are available from most standard keyboards, and signatures that do not generate loads of code. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Source listings on talk pages

Hi, it might be necessary to alter the wording at Wikipedia:SIG#When_signatures_should_and_should_not_be_used. I have never seen items in source listings being signed when they figure in list form ( not embedded as a part of a distinct post ) and I think that this makes good sense. The current wording doesn't capture that usage ( and seems to explicitly disallow not signing such additions ), and has resulted in a recent ANI thread here. un☯mi 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a minor issue which isn't worth changing the policy for.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, will you be back to support me next time? ;) un☯mi 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No, we're not changing the guideline because of a single argument that wouldn't have happened if either party had a lick of sense or grace. --erachima talk 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility of sigs

I've started to draft a page of advice for editors who wish to make sure their sigs are accessible. Please feel free to contribute to its development. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No Connection to Actual Signing

I am trying to sign in Wikipedia so I would be taken seriously so it would help a lot if this page connects to the sign in page which ever is is because I'm trying to find it with no success. Thanks

Why isn't this automatic by default?

I've always wondered: why aren't signatures automatically appended to every user-talk message? Or, why isn't the edit form pre-filled with the four-tilde signature code? Don't get me wrong, I sign my comments. But its just such an easy-to-forget thing. If people are so passionate about it, wouldn't auto-sigs help everyone get along? Blevintron (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though problems might arise. Probably, for every edit a sign might be added which wouldn't help if you are fixing typos, or the adding the unsigned or a wikiproject template. But still I agree with comments, otherwise. extra999 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
But the "proceeding unsigned comment" message doesn't appear automatically after every single edit, just the new lines. So it seems like it can be done. I've always wondered about it too, since when I forget the auto "unsigned" message identifies me anyway.Schnapps17 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the creator of Sine Bot could answer this.Schnapps17 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Places outside of talk space may also need a signature which means specific pages would need to be implemented in the MediaWiki software. To implement this in the software is impossible in the first place as free downloadable copies of this software is provided by the foundation to those who may want it and those specific pages won't be there and could cause software issues. On top of that if the software adds your signature to every edit you make in talk space, a mess of signatures will be created and that could be quite a pain to remove. SineBot uses a script specifically designed for this Wikipedia.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There are scripts that some people use to nag them to add their signature if they might be forgetting to do so, but that's usually as far as most people go. Regular talk page contributors tend to find it extremely annoying to have the software automatically add a signature, because they don't realize just how often they go back and edit their comments, add things on top of them, refactor discussions, and do various other things in signature-heavy areas. Due to this large amount of exception to the rule, these types of things necessarily require extensive parsing either client-side or server-side to correctly interpret, with any accuracy, just what, exactly, the editor is doing (and correctly add or not add the signature). Not even my bot can be 100% accurate, which is part of the reason the bot doesn't even try to deal with people who have high edit counts (unless they opt in), as they're the ones certain to be annoyed by the bot simply due to their higher level of involvement with complex talk page actions. So, to answer the initial question, I think the reason the software doesn't add signatures is because it would annoy the large number of regulars who remember to add signatures when they need adding and not add them when they don't need adding. --slakr\ talk / 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

intentionally and persistently disruptive

I do not agree that there should be logical conjunction of "intentionally" and "persistently". Of course, if one uses a disruptive signature not intentionally nor persistently, then s/he may not be blocked for that. If one intentionally used a disruptive signature, then s/he may be blocked however, even if there was several instances in a short time (i.e. not persistently). If one persistently (but not intentionally) uses a disruptive signature, and ignore warning and complains, then s/he may be blocked too. Hence, logical disjunction is appropriate, with wording "intentionally or persistently disruptive". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Signatures that mess up archiving

One thing that I note as I try to correct archiving issues is that when someone has something which follows the "(UTC)" portion of the datestamp, it fouls archiving on those pages because it prevents the bot from reading the timestamp string correctly.

Do we have clear policies or guidelines which prohibit this? If not, I think that we should.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned comment templates

There are a few problems with the unsigned comment templates that I've noticed, but don't have the privileges to change. They fall into two categories:

Not all of them are supposed to be identical in style (e.g. Signing, Quotedfrom etc.), but it's still quite a mess: some redundancy, e.g. Xsign & Unsigned-unk; Quotedfrom & Warningorigin add an extra "(UTC)" to the date and use an odd talk/contribs style; Uns-ip links to an old Signatures page etc. But the main problem is with the bot not identifying comments marked with some of these templates for archiving.

If an admin is willing to help, then it only needs the following to be done:

  • Add {{subst only|auto=yes}} to each (relevant) template, to make them auto substituted
  • Add them to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force, to work on the backlog of substitutions
  • Edit them to match in style with no text after "(UTC)", to allow archiving to work properly

Of course, if there's a reason why it hasn't been done before then that would be good to know too! --xensyriaT 19:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure I'd help but I'm not an admin right now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
In these edits, I have a) added {{subst only|auto=yes}} to the documentation pages of these templates, and amended the format of 4 of them.
I have not yet added any of them to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force, until we have checked the format of the remainder. That's because once the bot starts substing them, that format will be hardcoded.
So that leaves us with several templates whose format has text after "(UTC)", which breaks archiving. Does anyone want to suggest a rewording for each of them? ({{Unsigned2Fix}}, {{UnsignedIP2Fix}}, {{User actual}}, {{Quotedfrom}}, {{Warningorigin}}). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) how about the following:
I'm not all that happy with the first two. The only way to ensure the date is last is by putting the rest first, but it doesn't read as well, so I've asked Misza13 if it's possible to add a fixed text after the (UTC). Also having second thoughts on if Template:Xsign and Template:Unsigned-unk should be substituted at all; they should probably be temporary until someone adds a full Template:Unsigned, and if they're transcluded it makes it much easier to see what needs to be done. --xensyriaT 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems the Miszabots have been fixed, and are able to handle more complex templates; as a result I propose the following sig markup fix templates:
Looking over the templates again only a few of the main ones are protected, so unless anybody objects I'll make the edits I can to match them in style in the next few days. --xensyriaT 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
So is this going anywhere, or should I remove the |auto=yes so my bot stops wanting to complain about it? Anomie⚔ 01:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Took a while to get around to it, but all are now fixed except for {{Undated}}: if you remove the full stop after "an unspecified datestamp" then they'll all match, and ready to be added to your bot list for auto substitution. Please note that {{Unsigned-unk}} should probably be left transcluded until someone gets around to adding a complete {{Unsigned}}. --xensyriaT 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signatures#Links states that a signature should not contain external links but should contain a link to a user's userpage and/or talk page. What if a user is from another language WP and links their signature to their userpage on that Wiki? It seems that the WP:MOS and Help:Interlanguage links are somewhat unclear about whether or not an interwiki link is an internal link. Maybe that's just my interpretation. In my opinion, "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" should be changed to "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page on English Wikipedia". I checked the archives and couldn't find that this discussion has already taken place. Any opinions? OlYeller21Talktome 18:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One way is to use an interwiki redirect on your user and talk pages here to your "home wiki". That way, links from things like history logs as well as your sig also go to your main page. --xensyriaT 18:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional links to your home wiki are fine. There should of course also be an easy way to find the user's local contributions, e.g. through a local user page or talk link. I can imagine problems with interwikilinks only if somebody uses their signature for non-Wikimedia wiki advertising (in particular for commercial sites like Wikia). —Kusma (t·c) 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signature instruction doesn't appear to be correct!

the four tildes don't appear to add a signature at all, only a timestamp. Presumably the pencil icon is supposed to do both both, but for the life of me I can't get either to work as claimed. Is this because the signature shows up to others and not the user? If so it is essential to state this to avoid wasting users time!

I only occasionally use and edit Wiki and have not got the expertise of regular uses, so I'm sure others will have similar problems to me in making any sense of this page.

Here we go again wiki 09:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) and --wiki 09:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you have set your signature to "wiki" in Special:Preferences and checked "Treat the above as wiki markup". If you set the signature field to "Andromedean" and uncheck the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box, everything should work fine. —Kusma (t·c) 10:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a line just to remind the user to enter the signature under 'my preferences'. Even if your username appears correctly at the top of the page it will only reference what is in the signature box! Perhaps this is obvious to everyone except me! --Andromedean (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed that text because it implied that a user must do something in "my preferences", and that is not correct. If someone would care to do some testing, they might propose some text to say that if the preferences have been changed, it may be necessary to remove the signature text in preferences to correct a mistake so a proper signature appears. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Things work fine if you do nothing in "my preferences", because the defaults are correct. But there's little we can do to stop people from entering problematic text in the Signature field or from checking "Treat the above as wiki markup" without actually using wiki markup. Anomie⚔ 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Blinkity Blink!

Please see discussion about various signature formatting issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 102#Blinkity Blink!. We may want to be clearer about what is and is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I

How do I change the way my signature goes? What I mean is that how do I change the colour and the appearance of my signature when I sign my post with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thanks! I'd love to know how! --Garnershiqian (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is some info at WP:CUSTOMSIG (it involves "my preferences" found at the top of each page). Please ask at WP:HELPDESK for details (and see the edit message that appears when editing this talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Please see the announcement and discussion at WP:VPT# HTML5 is coming to Wikimedia Wikis.... It sounds like this will affect lots of people's signatures, among other things. LadyofShalott 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying signatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I think there is a consensus in favour of allowing custom prefixes, adding or altering text and adding or removing wiki-links related to the users activity. There is no consensus for altering the username, adding wikilinks to other pages, trivial formatting changes and advanced CSS formatting. There is also a consensus against particularly unreasonable signatures, if your signature is attracting criticism then you need to react maturely and civilly towards such comments, especially if they are raising accessibility concerns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia is liberal on users' signatures, allowing to specify nearly whatever markup one finds appropriate. Though policy discourage several particularly distracting modifications, the opinions in recently closed Signature policy discussion at WP:VPP, ongoing Blinkity Blink! discussion at WP:VPT and several other discussions seem to suggest that the liberty of signature formatting is already excessive.

This poll is conducted in order to probe for consensus about the aspects of signature customization. To make discussion more focused, I prepared a list of typical alterations of signatures to be discussed:

  1. Prefix of signature ("-", "–", "—", "--", etc);
  2. Altering the username (eg. [[user:Example|John Doe]]);
  3. Adding or altering text (eg. "Example (aka John Doe) (talk)" or "Example (chat)");
  4. Adding or removing wikilinks related to user's activity (eg. remove link to userpage from signature, or add a link to users' contributions);
  5. Adding wikilinks to other pages (eg. adding wikilink to WP:V or even favorite article);
  6. Trivial formatting changes (altering foreground/background colors, adding borders, making parts of signature superscript, etc.)
  7. Advanced CSS formatting (eg. adding shadows, altering position of text, blinking, etc.).

Feel free to reference these and add your own ideas (eg. "Allow only 1, 3, but only within ASCII range."). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Allow only 1 and 2: the simpler is the signature, the less it distracts. Still, entering prefix ("—" in my case) manually every time is annoying, this option should still be allowed. Furthermore, though I could live with my username unaltered, several editors are better known for their altered names in signatures, so this should be allowed for compatibility reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow all the above, as long as the signature in some way links to the user signing it, is not intentionally deceptive, and doesn't break formatting, it should be allowed. Users with hard to read shadows or blinking text should be continuously {{trout}}ed until they change signatures, but should not be forced to as a matter of policy. Monty845 00:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow only 1 and 2 and 3 and 4: Personal aesthetics are best kept to one's own Userpage. If an editor wants a way to easily see their own name in a huge talkpage, then use the User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js script. I've loved it for years. (See screenshot. Every instance of the word "quiddity" throughout wikipedia is in bright green, but nobody else has to see it.) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I find customized signatures helpful in identifying editors, because I have a better memory for colour and style than I do for names. Secondly, Wikipedians like to have fun with their signatures, and it seems like harmless fun. I've very rarely seen a signature that could count as disruptive; by the time editors realize the degree to which they can customize it, they're usually experienced enough to know what's disruptive. Allow all of the above (except perhaps 5) and only worry about it on a case by case basis if the signature is clearly disruptive. We have guidelines in place already, and I believe those to be sufficient. 1, 2, 3 and 4 seem unquestionably acceptable, 6 and 7 are the grey area where it could get disruptive, and I've never heard of 5, but I can see how it might be problematic. Apparently my browser (Google Chrome) doesn't support "blinking" text. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 06:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I came across all these examples in an hour before starting this RfC. I wouldn't point to specific editors, though, to avoid building "hate group". That said, I'm pretty convinced that by the end of RfC, the signatures on this page would match all my examples. P.S.: Among statistically noticeable browsers only Firefox supports blinking, and even there it may be disabled globally in about:config. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There's harmless customisation, and there's bad customisation. No names, but I know exactly who the initial subject of Blinkity Blink! is, because I got a complaint in before that thread was raised. Also, some sigs break the page layout - recently, on the talk page of a TFA, I came across a sig with the following styling :
--<div style="background:yellow;">
<font style="background:lightgrey">[[user:Example|<sup><font face="tempus sans itc" color="red" size="550">E</font></sup><font face="tempus sans itc" color="darkgreen" size="600">X</font><sup><font face="tempus sans itc" color="magenta" size="550">A</font></sup><font face="tempus sans itc" color="Blue" size="600">M</font><sup><font face="tempus sans itc" color="Indigo" size="2">P</font>]]</sup>[[user talk:Example|<font face="courier new" color="black" size="2">LE</font>]]</font>
Quite apart from the shouty full-width ostentation, this sig lacked a closing </div>, so the sig styling was applied to the rest of the page (btw, it's genuine, I just changed the name).
So, here's what I feel. Allow 1,4 always - the presence of one or two hyphens or dashes is not essential, but is a useful, non-distracting separator; and a wikilink to any one or more of the user page, talk page and contribs is an essential positive identification. Allow 2,3 for existing cases (no new cases) - some users are well known by the alias or other textual quirk, but increased uses of these should not be encouraged. Allow 6 - subject to conformance with MOS:ACCESS (esp. WP:CONTRAST). Deny 5,7 because there is no need, esp. for 7 - apart from the previous example which is ostentatiously sized, coloured and styled beyond the point of distraction, I've seen sigs that are none of those, yet are almost unreadable, because of blurred lettering, or pastel colours against a grey cloud. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
They must have been substing a template in their sig, because MediaWiki both enforces a 255-character limit (that's over 500) and requires that the signature parse as a valid XML fragment. But it doesn't try to expand templates (even if it did, the template could always be changed after saving). Anomie⚔ 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • deny all, and you must comply. </humor>. OK .. I guess if the sig. actually did blink in my browser (Chrome), it might get annoying. Cause I kinda like this one:  Ched(talk)  — Ched :  ?  13:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I find modified signatures, including my own, highly helpful in quickly identifying who posted where. And I mean highly useful, as in it really helps me keep track of things. Per Monty845 above, if there isn't anything really bad they should be allowed... or encouraged. In addition to their usefulness, they are a harmless way of allowing users to express individuality. The only one I would consider worth denying is usernames which change from one time to another. That causes genuine confusion. Be——Critical 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's part of the problem though. See User:Athaenara/Gallery/Beyond.
    1) It leads to "who can be the boldest within the acceptable/technical limits".
    2) It means a few people stand out more than others, and those of us who don't use bright/bold sigs risk being overlooked/ignored, because the reader jumped to the visual-eyecatcher.
    I totally understand the other (your) perspective, but those of us who are critical are just trying to point out that it's a complicated situation, with serious pros and cons each way. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • People are allowed to show their bad taste by choosing a stupid signature. They should be allowed to continue. Of course, comments followed by a stupid signature will look less smart than comments followed by a tasteful signature. If your signature cries "look at me! listen to me!" then I won't. But really, any time spent enforcing signature rules would probably be better spent elsewhere (for example, simplifying or deleting Wikipedia policies). —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow all except 2, 5, and the blink tag. The name in the signature should be either your account name or another user page linking to your account (such as if I were to sign as Sinkhole, which is both a valid talk page and has a prominent link to my real page). --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow 1, 2 & 3 if not confusing or disruptive, 4 as long as at least a user or user talk link remains, 6 & 7 if not disruptive (e.g. no blink, normal font sizes, legible font, accessible colors, "display:inline" only, etc.). I see little need to throw out username adjusting, tasteful coloring, and such just because a few people are stupid about it. Anomie⚔ 17:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow all. Four tildes are enough for anyone who just wants to focus on article content and good consensus process.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Anomie summed up my view quite well. My only suggestion would be a maximum length, but a maximum length is something which is hard to define. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Note we do already have a maximum length: 255 characters of wikitext. This is generally enforced by MediaWiki itself, although the template loophole is enforced only by policy. Anomie⚔ 02:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of limiting sig customisation; chiefly to comply with MOS:ACCESS (mainly sigs currently fail to comply with web accessibility standards, and many include mystery meat links, including examples where the first few characters of a username link to the user page an the remaining characters to their talk page. I've even seen one editor - an admin! Who removed the link from their signature. That said, my sig is customised to include my real name, add a link to my contributions (in the interests of openness), to disambiguate the talk page link (to enhance accessibility) , and to emit metadata. I'd like to see the options listed at the head of this section rephrased or expanded to take account of these issues. I also predict that any move to limit sig customisation will arouse the ire of the bikeshedders, and we may need to move this section to a sub-page, to accommodate the likely volume of posts.

Note also the draft policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Signatures which I started some time ago, and which could be modified and adopted as a result of this RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So what color-colours should we be allowed to use? :-) — Ched :  ?  11:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
#0645AD:  ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If you must change them, see MOS:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Andy has a point about metadata and it would be best if things like that were generated by MediaWiki from fields users entered (and the the software sanitised) in prefs. But who the hell needs talk and contrib links cluttering up the world when we've got POPUPS. Turn the next version of that on by default (anons, too;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
How do popups work on ATs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
ATs? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. Assistive Technologies. Things used by people with disabilities, to access the web. Like Jaws, or Braille display pads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

... or we could let peps do whatever they want... They're doin' it anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, actually. Most editors can't be bothered to do something unique so there aren't many unusual signatures on any given page at any given time. Those who use them may find it easier to keep track of their comments, and that's fine with me. Its such a small way for some editors to show individuality. And gosh, we don't have to have more controls in place do we, especially those which will not affect the quality of our articles one way or the other. (olive (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
The most significant problem is that some sigs do not meet WCAG standards for web accessibility; which means that they are difficult or impossible to read, or navigate, for some people, who may be blind or have a sight impairment, for example. A script to help people who wish to keep track of their own comments, without disadvantaging other editors, has already been mentioned above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Rather then trying to end all expression in signatures, wouldn't it make more sense to identify those with signatures that create accessibility problems and work with them to fix the problem? Monty845 14:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately without a policy to back it up, people can be quite stubborn when it comes to changing even when the problem is explained to them, simply because it isn't a problem for them. -— Isarra ༆ 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage signatures that are hard to type or search for. ∈תMρŁ€. jonkerz ♠talk 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the only reason people dress up their signature, is the same reason that people use avatars. To express themselves and to establish a visual identity. It's easier to recognize visual shapes and colors than it is to recognize a row of letters. So probably unless you bring avatars, people will always feel the need to dress up their signature. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallowing one would needlessly force editors to type a separator manually, disallowing two and three would contradict the guidance here, and disallowing five would again result in people adding such links manually. I would therefore allow 1, 2, 3 and 5, and am indifferent on 4, 6 and 7. —WFC— 11:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we should allow basically everything, with an option to force removal of seriously disruptive sigs through the normal user-behavior dispute systems. Separately, I believe that we should find the inventor of the HTML blink tag and have a friendly, candid discussion with him about his invention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Many editors who go for the more disruptive signatures tend to be more stubborn ones, unwilling to change without a concrete policy to back up a request, so having at least a concrete guideline wouldn't hurt. That said, pretty much anything can be fine if used well; the problem is that folks cannot agree on what is 'well' in the first place, or in some cases bring themselves to care. So I'd say 1 certainly; 2, 3 and 4 within reason; and 5 within reason, but I can't actually think of a good reason for that one, though that doesn't mean there isn't one. 6 and 7 also aren't inherently bad, but tend to at best do little more than make the source text of the signature needlessly long and give unneeded emphasis to random people's signatures, and at worst break the entire page, so eeeh. -— Isarra ༆ 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • For many editors, Wikipedia's "wall of text" methods of discussion is difficult to follow. This is a common criticism from new editors I've spoken to and from potential editors who refuse to start. One thing I tell them, is that signatures help, acting as focal points for your comments, so you can easily see replies to them. For this reason, I would suggest that 1-6 are allowed (though I discourage 7). WormTT(talk) 08:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    Complicated signatures make the wall of text worse when in edit mode, though, since they tend to be so long in source. Perhaps if the limit were lowered that would help with both that and with helping prevent the truly ridiculous? -— Isarra ༆ 16:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    I would argue that no one should see "edit mode", and I'm aware that the foundation is working on something to sort that. There's a lot of code in "edit mode", lots of markup, all of which is complex, and another reason Wikipedia is daunting for newcomers. The limit of 256 chars is currently ignored by quite a few editors - something I highlight whenever I see it. My sig is currently 222 chars, largely because of my long username. It's also compatible with green on black screens - or any other default colours, because it's got a background. There are ways to remove the styling from the text - and as czarkoff mentions below. WormTT(talk) 09:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    FWIW my signature is nearly 2 times shorter then yours, and 108 chars of difference are greater then difference in our user names. BTW, you might have made your signature 18 chars shorter without altering rendering: WormTT(talk). Still, the length of your signature comes from your use of char-expensive shadow, that actually only results in worse readability (blurry text). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'll take on board your suggestions, and update it - thanks for that. Regarding my signature specifically, the blurriness is not very noticeable due to the low contrast difference, but it does mean my signature is clearly visible using the green-on-black accessibility scheme. I considered a background colour, but felt it was rather unpleasant when commenting on certain users talk pages. WormTT(talk) 10:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    BTW what use case do you mean by "using the green-on-black accessibility scheme"? In Lynx your signature renders as Worm^TT(talk). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to the Green-on-black monobook skin, available in My Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearance. WormTT(talk) 11:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, in Lynx this page is ways more readable then in other browsers. No single distracting signature, and navigation is dramatically facilitated by only two text colors (black and blue). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    BTW, some CSS styling (or even JS signature replacing as a gadget) could do a better job. FWIW for me the problem of signatures standing out is more distracting then a "wall of text". FWIW text is the central content concept of Wikipedia with all illustrations and decorations being complementary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    I wholly agree there's better ways we could do the styling. Text being a central concept of Wikipedia might be fundamentally flawed, as we are likely to only get editors who react well to text based websites. Media rich websites are becoming the norm online, and Wikipedia's text heavy style is looking dated. Breaking the text up is not a Bad ThingTM WormTT(talk) 09:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "media rich websites", but anyway this has nothing to do with colorful signatures. If there indeed is a problem of navigation on talk pages, there should be means of addressing it on viewers' side, not on data side. Eg. the signatures may be enclosed in spans with class="signature", and a gadget for coloring signatures may be provided. Doing this with custom signatures is a fundamentally Bad Thing™. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    I mean that trying to decypher talk pages, with the "wall of text" is something that I used to do in the 90s, when internet speeds were much slower. Today, typical websites (even other online encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica) feature much more media, better layouts and more readability. Wikipedia's layout is in the dark ages by comparison. I personally alternate solutions for styling signatures, eg java script or taking the css out of the page, but we have more fundamental problems that need to be sorted before custom signatures should be removed. WormTT(talk) 10:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    Decypher? I don't think so. Still, I don't see how blurry text, blinking, shadows, coloring, links to WP:BIO and other stuff one may easily find among signatures helps in this regard. For me it makes matters much worse, as I lose focus once I spot distracting signature. Furthermore, I seldom find myself building a prejudice against an editor with fancy signature before seeing his contributions (a dramatically Bad Thing™, but I can't help myself with this). And I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    Blinking is distracting, as would be scrolling or other moving text. High contrast colours also draw the eye, but more than a few of the editors who use them have visual impairments, and the high contrast allows them to find their signatures easily. This is a Good Thing™. As to building an impression based on a signature, I generally don't do that, though I do associate a signature with opinions, and find them much more memorable than the username they are attached to. I do think a javascript post render styling would be a good idea, which would allow editors to turn off fancy signatures... WormTT(talk) 10:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    No, it is a bad workaround, while there are readily available gadgets and methods implementing proper workaround. FWIW visually impaired users mostly have contrast tuned, so their high-contrast signatures are not that different from the rest of text. P.S.: where should I address a query about wrapping signatures in a span or div with custom class? As of now they are not wrapped. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    I believe that should be raised at Village pump (ideas lab) or Village pump (proposals). WormTT(talk) 11:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    I would support the idea of having a span and a class around all user signatures. Indeed, this is exactly what I was suggesting yesterday on Portuguese Wikipedia (where similar discussion is taking place), borrowing the ideia I saw on Wikimedia Commons, where they tried to use this for translating the "talk" link of the signatures. Helder 03:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't necessarily oppose rules which restricted certain signatures, but I don't think it should be done on technical grounds, as with points 1-7 given above, all of which can have their place: for example, my signature uses 6 & 7, but I doubt many people would object to it in practice. Instead, I suggest that it be done based on two factors: First, signatures should not be misleading, confusing or unreadable; second they should not be distracting, disruptive or offensive. These would be determined at the discretion of consensus and admins. A 2.0 approach would be to allow sigs to be + or - ed, so that users would be able to get simple feedback on the sig, and would allow admins to easily find the worst offenders, but doesn't really seem to be the way Wikipedia's going. --xensyriaT 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is consensus that someone's signature is disruptive, it should be changed (possibly enforced with blocks, if the user refuses to comply). Otherwise I don't think we should restrict specific things. (Basically, the current approach.) wctaiwan (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment To those saying that the signatures are too long and confusing when in edit mode, remember that's the fault of the current rules. It is very possible to have ...what's it called... signatures where you have {{something like this}} instead of signature code. For example, just look at the signature I'm putting here: Be ___ Critical And as for stuff about increasing server load, I don't believe it could be significant, I bet there isn't any problem with current server technology. Wikipedia surely has sufficient resources. Be——Critical 15:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Use of unsubstituted templates such as {{User:Becritical/Signature}} violates WP:SIG#NoTemplates. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • This is an RfC on what we should and should not allow, so proposing to allow templates is OK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • OK then. Oppose permitting the use of unsubstituted templates in sigs, for the same reasons that we recommend the substitution of all WP:UW templates - the potential for the meaning to be altered after placement (possibly maliciously). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
          • BTW, is there a way to permanently protect template with exception for one user? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
            • No - template protection (whether the template is in Template: namespace or User: space) is the same as for other pages outside of MediaWiki: space. Available options are either "Allow all users"; "Block new and unregistered users"; or "Block all non-admin users" - there is no option to "Block all non-admin users but allow specified usernames". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Ignoring the workarounds (per WP:BEANS), even if we did allow templates, we'd still have to constantly police various problems such as people using dynamic code ("I want my name to be a random color in every instance, and on each reload!") which completely destroys Page-caching. (Page-caching is critical, and is the reason we're not getting a WP:MAGIC#Variables for {{USERNAME}} anytime soon - See bugzilla:4196 for details.) —Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
                • Yes, "page caching." I'm guessing that for moderate use such as changing a sig once a month it would be okay, but as you say could easily be abused. But FWIW, "there is no option to "Block all non-admin users but allow specified usernames"" But there is, all you have to do is have a special usergroup for it no? Would require a bureaucrat to assign the usergroup though. Be——Critical 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • Not exactly. Someone with appropriate access would have to change the enwiki configuration to add these groups, and add them as appropriate block options. One for each different set of "specified usernames". It would probably be easier to convince someone to add "block all non-admins except these specified users" as an actual option than to get someone to agree to that hack. Anomie⚔ 00:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Technically if you want to have something that only a given user and admins can edit, we already have that - any user subpage ending with .css or .js is protected in just such a manner. But templates have other problems such as enabling various dumb things, causing server strain when updated, and yadda etc cows. -— Isarra ༆ 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow, I find customized signatures occasionally gaudy, but often useful in navigating large discussions. With regard to point 5, which has some critics above, I've seen links to particular Wikiprojects fit in here (expressed as a couple tiny characters as a link) that struck me as constructive, not gaudy, and arguably beneficial, I'd hate to toss those out as a matter of what I find unattractive. Mockery and trout remain effective tools for managing the latter problem. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    The obvious/glaring problems are easy to deal with, it's when we get closer to the fine-line of subjectivity that it becomes difficult. A kinda perfect example is: Becritical. The design/style/aesthetic is really very nice indeed, it's original, classy, formal, uses symmetry and non-symmetry well, etc. From a typographile perspective I think it's lovely! But from the angle of someone trying to read a threaded discussion, those giant black spots leap out and steal part of my attention. (but, they do make good mental-map reference locations if I'm scrolling a large page, and other factors; but, it's complicated, which is all I really hope everyone can/will/does acknowledge. :)
If we get mw:Flow as pictured, then I'll add my own avatar-image just to look like a 'regular', but i'll turn off all images at my end so that i can read! —Quiddity (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey thanks Quiddity (: It sounds like what you're describing is a difference in the way different people mentally process the pages. So it would be hard to get a consensus here since modified sigs are helpful for some and a nuisance to others. The "outside factor" is that they allow individuality to editors. I think flashing is one thing we could definitely ban though. Be——Critical 15:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We already have that. Under Appearance and Colour it states "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." (emphasis in original) WormTT(talk) 15:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
...I'm not colour blind...Your signature is fine. The only ones that give me grief are moving or blinking ones. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow all with severe limitations on 2, 6, and 7. The signature needs to clearly identify the user and direct to their userspace through at least one link. The signature needs to be legible, and not all over the place. What I have uses 1, 2, 6, and 7 but it's clearly not disruptive. Now compatible with HTML5.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow 1 ( 'cause it's nice to have a separator), 2&3 (within reason; it should still resemble the original), 4, 6 (as long as it's tasteful and doesn't mess up other lines), and parts of 7 as long as they are readable and not distracting (absolutely no blinking, moving, etc). I'm currently using 1, 6, and 7. I'm personally fine with most of the sigs on this page with the possible exception of Be Critical (it stands out too much in a wall of text.) Does mine look ok? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Your sig is in the middle... ;) But at least the code is short, and it's blue (as links usually are). The folks who use near the 255character limit and are hard to read or distracting, are the most problematic. —Quiddity (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow most basic customisations. I find differences in font and colour to be helpful when following long discussions, or to pick out comments from particular editors (rather than using the "find" function). I'd go for disallowing flashing, blinking, scrolling, or anything else visually disconcerting / offputting / obtrusive; also disallowing anything overly large or small. With regard to having a sig-nickname which doesn't correspond to the username, I think provided that it's kept constant, and has a link to the user / talk (which it should, anyway), then it's not really a problem. Pesky (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • We should disallow certain specific things, not specify what exactly is allowed. I would include the use of CSS text-shadows (it almost always makes it harder to read) and, as someone mentioned above, linking different parts of the same word to different places, differentiating the links only by color. I concur with those who have said that a bit of visual distinctiveness helps pick out particular participants in discussions. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus regarding specific ones as disruptive

Some folks mentioned that if there is a consensus that a signature is too much, then that should suffice, but how exactly do we go about getting such a consensus? Taking someone to AN over a signature of all things seems pretty silly, especially when a lot of the time the only reason they don't want to change it is simply because they don't see any consensus for it needing changing. Many signatures are sufficiently borderline that there isn't any good way to decide if they do need to be changed, too, so there has to be a more appropriate forum to decide that in the first place. Take Becritical's signature, for instance: Be——Critical Sure, one or two users may find it distracting, but that doesn't necessarily mean much, and according to guideline and policy there's nothing specifically wrong with it... but what if I were to argue that it is indeed annoying and disruptive to other users entirely because of how much it stands out? How would we decide if it really is disruptive or not? -— Isarra ༆ 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The only options we have, are user talkpages (where they'll often just feel harassed and get defensive, or ignore single complaints) or ANI. Hence this is a perennial discussion, and the only real solution is technical (past iterations of this discussion are why we have a 255 character limit. See Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#Guideline Review for information and agony). —Quiddity (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be hard to define a guideline. Extra padding isn't always a problem. Sub-Sup isn't always a problem. Bold colors aren't always a problem. When they're all combined, it can be problematic. If I take the sub-sup out of Becritical's sig and reduce the padding, I get Be––Critical, which is just fine by me. I could also make it a lighter shade of black like this: Be––Critical which improves it further (IMO). I could see politely approaching the user on their talk page. (Responses will differ, of course.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
But even when it's smaller, the contrast is there, so it will still distract folks. Although that one you made lighter I couldn't even tell was lighter. -— Isarra ༆ 07:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, "distraction" is basically another word for "standing out." We're trying to define a set of rules for something that effects average people to very different extents, and effects them both positively and/or negatively. It's a rather impossible problem except at the very ends of the bell curve, as with blinking. Just to mix things up and show how hard a rule would be, I could do this: Be——ןɐɔıʇıɹɔ................. Be——Critical 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, and that is why there might be need for discussion on the matter, so we can see where the consensus lies - where the bell in the curve actually is. Rules are problematic, but consensus backed precedent might be able to help... or it could lead to even more annoying drama while people argue about frivolous things. Yay, drama. -— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the status quo. If you object to a person's signature, bring it to their attention as diplomatically as you can, providing as concrete reasons as possible to change it. Maybe suggest asking a mutually agreeable third party to weight in with their advice. If the user decides to keep their signature, then it is up to you as the objector to decide: Is the signature sufficiently disruptive to justify bringing it to a notice board. If it is not that disruptive, then where is the harm in letting them keep the signature? Also if a particular signature element is regularly rejected at noticeboards, you can point to that when discussing future signatures. Maybe, if there is a regular source of problems, we can come back and discuss a rule, sort of like how new CSD criteria are created. (Or usually not created) Monty845 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I changed my sig when people pointed out it interfered with surrounding text, but ignored a couple of people saying they didn't like it.[1] [2]. And one, i'm just not sure... (: BTW, what I find far more disruptive is people with sigs that are hard to spell. THAT causes me all sorts of hassle. Relating it to this issue, it seems like the spelling is really just my problem and maybe souped-up sigs are just something people have to get used to like avatars. Here's a thought: it should be possible to add some sort of tag or other to signatures, which could tell the wiki software to not display the CSS or HTML within those tags. Then, people who don't like CSS on sigs could choose to opt out by creating a user sub-page. All we'd have to do is make a rule that any CSS on a sig must include the tag. Something like <div style="ickysig"></div> Be——Critical 01:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So the only way to get a clear consensus would be to take this to a noticeboard? Any particular noticeboard? And mon, the issue here wouldn't be css, just your particular css and tendency to ignore requests to change your signature. But at this point I'm not even sure if it is an issue or not, though - all I really know is that your signature is unusually distracting and you don't particularly care to be courteous about it. -— Isarra ༆ 01:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:AN/I would be the place to go with it. But as far as I can tell, the signature doesn't violate signature policy, which leaves the catchall argument that the signature represents Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I personally don't think it rises to that level. Monty845 05:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly clear above that some people find sigs like mine helpful, some distracting. No evidence as to which is the more usual reaction, and one has to balance the possible distraction against allowing individuality. It should be possible to have some tag or something that told the wiki software not to display the CSS on an individual basis, similar to nowiki only chosen by the user. Be——Critical 06:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

adding a false phone number to the signature

Is it possible to use a fake number in my signature such as 1800johndoe, etc?, Isn't it misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hima78 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's little reason to put any phone number in your Wikipedia signature, and some reasons not to. But do remember to sign your posts to talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Anomie⚔ 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Signing at the beginning?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC) How about signing at the beginning of a comment? In cases of long discussions with several editors contributing, it might clarify which thread starts where. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We should be getting a software change, to use mw:Flow, at some point in the future (once it's completed), which will solve this entirely. —Quiddity (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I took a look; looks great! Thanks for the response. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of statement which effectively transform a guideline into a policy

I've removed the statement, originally added as:

During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

Then edited to:

Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

Per BRD, I reject the notion that editors can be sanctioned for failing to meet a guideline. If the community wishes to take that illogical position, so be it, but not without a specific discussion, and even then, I'll be interested to see how a guideline can be elevated to policy without jumping through the usual hoops. I do not view a single editor adding a statement, followed by a slight rewording as constituting community discussion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD, I added it back, but with an inline link to discuss here. This has had silent consensus on the edits from over 6 months ago. Not signing posts is disuptive when editors do not know the source of comments, confuse them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign for them. This is disruptive. Bots currently miss a lot of unsigned cases.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Editors are sanctioned for failing to follow guidelines all the time, if they persist in doing so in ways that are disruptive, after being asked to change their behaviour. There are also plenty of discussions where this principal has been upheld by consensus, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu. In fact, any kind of disruptive editing may be subject to sanction, even if there is no explicit policy, guideline, or anything else stating that the particular action can be sanctioned. It is contrary to the whole spirit of Wikipedia to imagine there are rigid rules about what can and what cannot be subject to sanctions, "this is against a policy, so we can block, but this is only against a guideline, so we can't". Only if you take such an unWikipedian view does it make sense to suggest that the "statement ... effectively transform (sic) a guideline into a policy". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Why does Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing exist, with 182 entries, if signing is mandatory?
Why does {{NoAutosign}} exist, with over 500 transclusions, if signing is mandatory?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I suspect many regular users, who probably look for the sig icon when they go to other online sites, have forgotten how non-obvious this habit was when first starting. We purport to care about editor retention, yet we add news rules almost everyday, and expect brand-new users, who are invited to the encyclopedia than anyone can edit, to edit freely, as long as you don't trip over any one of the hundreds of rules, some common sense and some arcane. I grant that most of the rules are necessary, but we add on to the necessary rules, the odd "requirement" that everyone type 4 tildes at the end of their post (sometimes, not always, you must know when to do it and when not). It's a little thing, but it's one more little thing on lot of a lot of other things. And totally unnecessary. I refuse to accept that clever software can't do this for us. If sinebot can figure it out, why can't Mediawiki?
We ought to be working to make it easier for newbies to contribute, not erecting additional barriers, and insisting on existing barriers simply because we've ingrained the habit. I know I'm tilting at a windmill, but it really burns me that we claim to want to make this an enjoyable experience, yet we aren't staking steps to do so, and about to drive another editor away. We'll never know, but I'm sure other editors have abandoned this place because of the arcane rules, and who knows if the SIG rule contributed?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
You have given a long argument about why we shouldn't introduce a new rule saying that everybody has to sign. However, so far as I know, nobody has suggested that we should introduce a new rule saying that everybody has to sign. What has been suggested is that, within the existing guidelines, it is reasonable to take steps against someone who is disruptive by persistently posting messages in a misleading way. As for your stuff about "making it easier for newbies to contribute", nobody has suggested that a new editor who fails to add a signature would be penalised. We are dealing, as you know, with the situation where a long-established editor has been knowingly editing in a way that can be confusing and misleading, especially to the "newbies" that you are so concerned about. It is totally unhelpful to produce strawman arguments about why we shouldn't do things that nobody is suggesting doing, and present them as if they were arguments against something else, which people are advocating. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
My argument is that we ought to automate signing, if that is what we insist editors do. I also asked why some are exempt from signing, if that is the rule. I don't see a response to that.
Is it a rule? If so, then we should be remove the opt-out options (or explain why they exist).
You claim there are "plenty of discussions where this principal has been upheld by consensus" and list a single one. Did you read it? That case involved an admin, who ought to be signing (I think the rules for admins ought to be stricter than for non-admins). Moreover, the closing summary by well-respect admin Gwen Gale stated So long as this is only a guideline, such lacks shouldn't bring forth a block but if seen along with policy-breaking behavior, should have some sway as to what might be done about it and how quickly. (Emphasis added). Not only does it fail to support the claim that blocks have been upheld by consensus, it specifically notes that blocks are not warranted, unless accompanied by policy-breaking behavior.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I admit that I linked to that discussion hastily, and made a mistake. I believe I have seen others, though, and if I find one I will link to it. There are various situations where automatic signing is unhelpful. There are, for example, situations where adding a signature at the end of an edit would not be useful, such as some kinds of amendments to existing comments, and addition of some sorts of administrative notes to AfD discussions. Software can be programmed to deal with the most obvious cases, but no matter how complicated a set of rules we program in, there will always be cases which will be missed. My alternative account has a signature which links to my main account's talk page. When I set it up, I found that Sinebot was unhelpfully adding an unsigned message. Goodness knows why. No doubt I could have got on to the owner of Sinebot and asked for some software modification, but it was easier to just opt out of automatic signing. You ask "Is it (always signing) a rule?" That suggests that you have missed the main point I was trying to make above. No it isn't a rule, nor should it be. There are many things which don't have a "rule" against them, but which in some circumstances can be disruptive, and in such cases action can be taken. Much better to keep it that way, than to have either (1) a rigid rule that would impose unhelpful restrictions in cases where it wasn't relevant, or else (2) a complex rule with all sorts of exceptions, making it cumbersome and confusing, and in any case still sometimes failing to draw the line in the right place. We don't have a "rule" that nobody with a conflict of interest can edit, but if anyone with a conflict of interest persistently edits in ways where their COI is disruptive, despite being asked not to, action can be taken against them. in the same way, we don't have, and shouldn't have, a "rule" that everybody has to sign every post, but as you full well know we have recently had a case of an editor who has persistently failed to sign in ways that have been potentially confusing and misleading, and therefore disruptive. We do not have to come down on one side or the other, either everybody must always sign, or risk being blocked, or else signing is optional, and therefore under no circumstances can any action be taken against anyone who doesn't. We can instead take the line that signing is strongly encouraged, newcomers who don't know how to do it can be given friendly advice, others who use their judgement and decide in particular circumstances it is not desirable can, normally, have their judgement respected, but on the rare occasions when someone is downright awkward and obstructive about it we can take action. It is a fundamental failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia to think that we have to either have a rule that it has to be done always or else say that no action can ever be taken. There are many things which are not forbidden, but which can be acted on if they become disruptive. This is a simple example of the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered reply. I confess I did not quite follow your statement about your alternate account, but I gather you are explaining a legitimate reason for an auto sign opt-out. I think we are reasonably close on this issue. I am onboard with your explanation that we sometimes avoid writing a rule about something, because it is tricky to get it right, such as nailing down all the allowable exceptions. However, I'm not debating the block of whomever it was, I'm questioning the rule that was added to a guideline without debate.
Examining the sentence closer, I see two issues, both of which may be easily resolved. The second is the "may be sanctioned". It is weaker than "will be" because we don't want that absolute a requirement, but I read it as "any admin who sees a failure to sign has carte blanche to block". I now think I read too much into it, and it is simply noting that sanctions are an option. My first concern is the absolute construction of the first part; the declaration that persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive. Absolutes are always (OK, almost always) a red flag for me. "Intentional" is a very strong word, and absent agreement by the editor, cannot be discerned unequivocally. (I don't believe that in the present case, the editor conceded intent, so the decision to block was based upon observation of persistence, and a supposition that it must be intentional.) The declarative "is" means there are no exceptions. There is no circumstance under which a persistent failure to sign is disruption? A long back and forth exchange between two editors, where one is using a cell phone and either has no tilde, or it is unreasonably awkward to access? No principled reason for not signing can be contemplated? Let me stop my rant and say that if the first clause is modified from "is" to "may be considered" I won't be totally satisfied, but I'll shut up and move on to something productive. (hmm I would be happier if "persistent and intentional" were changed to "persistent, unexplained" because intent is so hard to pin down, but persistent use, coupled with failure to provide a rationale can be observed.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Valid points. How about: "Persistent failure to sign without a satisfactory explanation may be considered to be disruptive and may result in sanctions."—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of instances in real life where there is consensus put people opt out anyways, such as vaccinations and water fluoridation. My credit card offers autopay, which I dont use, but I'm sure I'm still expected to pay my bills on time. If people choose to opt out of autosigning, so be it. This does not absolve them from facing repercussions if they become disruptive. Note also that software can have bugs or limitations, and people may have opted out due to temporary issues or general distrust, warranted or not. A look a the to-do list at User talk:SineBot or its archives indicates that it is far from perfect.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been bold and changed the wording to Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions. It seems to me that this is close in spirit to the versions suggested by Sphilbrick and Bagumba, and if anything even less absolute and categorical, because "may be considered disruptive" suggests, I think, that it may always be so considered, whereas "may become disruptive" allows that at first it isn't disruptive, but there are situations in which it may become so. It also makes explicit the need to try to resolve the issue by talking to the editor, which I hope we all agree is a prerequisite. I guess that is similar to the intention of the original editor who referred to "intentional" failure to sign, but I agree with Sphilbrick that "intentional" is better avoided, and a verifiable act of communicating concerns to the editor is a better criterion than speculation as to motives. I may be subject to criticism for making the change while the matter is still under discussion, but it seems to me to be close in spirit to the suggestions made above, and of course Sphilbrick or Bagumba, or anyone else, is free to tweak it if they are not happy with my version. I certainly agree with Sphilbrick that the long-standing version Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned is much too categorical and definite. I also don't like may be sanctioned, because "to sanction an act" can be used to mean not "to apply sanctions to the perpetrator of the act", but rather "to approve and give permission for the act". I think it is very unlikely that anyone would think it meant that in the present context, but it still seems preferable to avoid ambiguous wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. And yes, the term "sanction" is an odd word, being its own antonym (as a verb) but no confusion in this formulation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Upon further thought, very good. You not only addressed my main concerns, but identified two others I hadn't considered, and addressed them as well. Nice work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_8&oldid=1179468038"