Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Allow for undated signing

Undated comments should be legitimate. First, Wikimedia supports them itself with the three-tilde macro, second, they expose more working hour habits than is necessary to any purpose and nice to privacy. Of course you can always look up a date from the history, but having it readily available in the current document only makes it easier for automatic harvesting. Please be respectful of contributor's choices in this case and do not run bots which automatically date undated comments. --lynX (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But harvesting it is trival anyway. Are you aware of Special:Contributions/SymlynX? Besides, the datestamps are important so that bots can keep track of automatic archiving of a discussion. --ais523 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it just automatic?

Why on earth are manual signatures even an issue? Why doesn't the software simply handle (and enforce) this? If I add a comment without a sig I see a little blurb added that I (it indicates my user name) added a comment without a sig. If it can do that why can't it simply insert and enforce the sigs in the first place without anyone having to even think about it? --Ericjs 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the main reason is that we don't always add a message to the end of the existing text. Sometimes we insert our comments between other people's comments which makes automatic signing difficult. Sometimes we simply fix something on the page and then there's no need for signature at all.

Visit Scripts and check out sign.js script which tries to put your sig automatically. When I tried it, I found it a bit annoying at the moments when I didn't want to sign, so I prefer my version, qSig, which only tries to remind you ∴ Alex Smotrov 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got to admit this is the biggest question I always have with all the fuss about telling people to "remember to sign their comments". I really think there should be some way to make the signature automatic - and this article - WP:Signatures - should explain why they aren't automatic and what plans are in place to fix this problem with the software. (Yes, I realize there are challenges, but they can be mitigated I'm sure.) Jpp42 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, though it seems to be broken.--Ericjs (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jpp42 meant to link to Wikipedia:Signatures (WP:SIG), the project page associated with this talk page. --ais523 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for default signatures

Editors watching this page might be interested in the following proposal: User signatures should link to both the user page and user talk page by default. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like it has changed within the last couple hours. Suddenly today I'm getting dashes and the talk link in my sig. It's OK I guess, it's just funny discussions about changing stuff like this always happen in obscure corners of the wiki when I'm not looking. -- Katr67 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they changed it back? Or did they change it so any custom sig won't be affected at all (before it was giving me my custom AND a talk link) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And now it's changed back again? What is up? Katr67 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted accidentally, apparently, as part of the effort to rewrite the parser. The new behavior was restored in r28156. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The time at the end of a signature

Now, what is the code to generate such a time? I am referring to this:

21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you do that without having to type your signature as well? And can you use it on other Wikipedias? UncleMontezuma 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean five tildes. I mean so as you can edit the font as well. UncleMontezuma 21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could use <font face="Brush Script MT">{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} ([[UTC]])</font>. With altered font, it would look something like: 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC). - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you just wrap the five tilde code in FONT/DIV/SPAN tags? Like this: "<span style="color: white; background-color: darkblue;">timestamp ~~~~~ with obnoxious color formatting</span>" becomes timestamp 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC) with obnoxious color formatting. Right? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change:Limited use of <br/>

we should be allowed to use <br/> tags at the beginning of our signatures to ensure that long signatures won't break, and those with ,  etc. won't disrupt surrounding text. This seems reasonable to me. Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. If there's a problem, use a shorter sig, this isn't myspace, it's Wikipedia. using linebreaks in sigs will break threaded discussion. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Using a <br> doesn't break threaded discussion, since it's not a real linebreak (thus making a new paragraph with wikicode), it's part of the <dd> element generated by wikicode.
See?
I'm still at this indent level. Though, I don't recall that <br> is actually forbidden in sigs. If it is, it should not be.--Random832 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to making this change (in other words, does consensus exist)? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 00:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think using forced line breaks in a signature is something to be strongly avoided. It makes assumptions about the user agent ("browser"), including text width, wrapping behavior, and indeed, that it's a text-display-based agent at all. What if I'm on a cell phone, or listening to a screen reader? If your signature is so long or complicated that wrapping is a problem, your signature is broken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bare pipe getting filled in

I didn't see this in the archives, so sorry if this has been mentioned. But my signature has the link to my user page as "[[User:DragonHawk|]]". Note the bare pipe at the end. That is rendered as follows: "DragonHawk". It is a MediaWiki feature that a bare pipe gets interpreted as "drop all the qualification stuff from display". So explicitly specifying my user name, as in "[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]]", is redundant, and (I feel) clutters the source wiki text of a talk page needlessly. That's why I made my sig that way. But here's the weird part: When MediaWiki actually copies my signature into a talk page, it fills in the actual text on the right side of the pipe, turning my bare pipe into the redundant version. Anyone know if there's a reason for this? Is it just a quirk/bug? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is by design, this pipe trick is always expanded on saving, just like ~~~~ ∴ AlexSm 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Huh. So it does appear to be. I could have sworn that it didn't work that way, but I guess it does. Maybe I'm losing my mind. Well, anyway, thanks for straightening me out. —DragonHawk 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

actually how to?

I'm confused, this page doesn't actually tell me how to change my sig, I mean how do I change the font/color? Is there another page for that? THANKS! Legotech (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No links in a signature

The Internal links section of this rules now states that "the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log".

But the older version of the rules does not have such a clause. This modification (16 July 2007) was made by User:Quiddity, but it's not trivial to find out the reason. So, why do we need such a requirement?

The concern expressed here that the signature does not "users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things" may be easily objected.

1. It may identify the author of a particular comment, if the signature consist of a nickname equal to the username though without an automatic backlink);
2. the backlink is stored in a page history and can be found if needed, thus addressing the other points. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 10:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is: are you trying to make navigation more difficult for other users? Imagine if everyone signed without any links (cause "hey, they can find me in the page history") and then some users also changed their nickname with every post (cause "hey, that's allowed as well") ∴ AlexSm 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not including a link is borderline disruption. John Reaves 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Any way to just see default signatures?

I'm really tired of seeing stupid signatures like _JIMMY^WHALES. All I want is a link to their userpage and perhaps their talk page, in the same format as everyone else. Is there anything I can do about this? --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering using ~~~~ puts in the sig's actual code, I imagine not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ever decide to start a discussion on a better guideleine (I mean Wikipedia:Signatures), please let me know and consider me a very strong supporter. Prohibiting images in signatures but still allowing color backgrounds and borders imho is simply stupid. P.S. I can also share some CSS (for Opera/Firefox) that helps to tone down some signatures (not all, unfortunately) ∴ AlexSm 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver?

It says in the External Links section that external links are not allowed. But it is focusing on promoting your website, and it might get search engines to look there, etc. But what about to the Toolserver? I would think that would be exempt, but I am not sure. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess a link to the toolserver would technically qualify as an external link. In my opinion, however, such a link would be okay; it would be more similar to an internal link (internal to Wikimedia) than to an external link (external to Wikimedia). I'm kind of surprised we don't have interwiki links set up to the toolserver. --Iamunknown 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's ok, because this seems to fall into «disruptive internal link» category, and definitely falls under «It is better to put information on your user page, rather than in your signature». In other words, please advertise your toolserver editcount on your userpage: make it the 1st link, and make it bold. P.S. Interwiki prefix is tools: / AlexSm 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AlexSm. Sigs in general are best kept as-short-as-possible (or left default). Editcounts especially are a drain on toolserver cycles, and are often inaccurate: You're better off to use the number given at the top of Special:Preferences, and add a userbox to your userpage giving a rounded-off number. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Customising date display in signatures?

Hi everyone! :-)

Just a single question here as I'm trying to customise my signature to display both my user page and talk links, plus the date in a customised format. So far, getting the user and talk page links working was very easy - Standard WikiCode, no problem. :-)

However, as someone who uses the British method of writing the date (DD/MM/YYYY as opposed to MM/DD/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD) and labels all of his Gregorian dates as Common Era, I've found that although I can add the date and time into my signature itself, Wikipedia keeps sticking the UTC date in after it which leads to an undesirable result, and me having to type my signature into talk pages by hand insted of using the four-tilde method.

Is there any way that I can disable the adding of the date to the end of my signature, mayhap with a tag in my raw signature box or something? My current code (In full) is as follows:

'''[[User:Hyperspeed|Hyperspeed]]''' ([[User_talk:Hyperspeed|Talk]]) - {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}[[Common_Era|CE]] {{CURRENTTIME}} UTC

Which is intended to produce something like:

Hyperspeed (Talk) - 06 June 1666CE 14:30 UTC

...But produces something more like:

Hyperspeed (Talk) - 06 June 1666CE 14:30 UTC 14:30, 6 June 1666 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to prevent Wikipedia adding the date in this way (Or at least customising the way the date is displayed with my signature without having to enter it manually every time!) then please leave a note or overview on my talk page. Many thanks in advance for any help! :-)

Hyperspeed (Talk) - 13 February 2008CE 01:22 UTC

Use just 3 tildes, to only show your name-code (which in your case includes the date).

However, datestamps are important so that bots can keep track of automatic archiving of a discussion, which your custom version will totally confuse. (It'll also annoy some regulars, who find things like this distracting). I'd strongly recommend you stick with the default timestamp method. There's also a bot that will come along later and autotimestamp your messages (with Template:Undated), if you don't use the default.

(Also, the default timestamp is in the format DD/MM/YYYY. Check your Special:Preferences "date" tab to make linked dates within articles display the way you want) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the answer is "don't do that". The timestamps need to be exactly the same pattern so that archiving bots can parse them. They aren't an area for personal expression. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

signature

Hi, I decided to use color in my signature. I was trying to find a slightly darker shade of orange to use in the second part. Can anyone help? Also, the gigantic tag on top of this page seems rather unnecessary. I would think that people would realize the signatures talk page is for signatures. Thanks, Enigma ^msg! 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend looking up an HTML color chart online and using that to select the right shade of orange. But beware that colors vary widely between different monitors, so what you see may not be what others see. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw a color chart on Wikipedia, but I wasn't sure how I would get the desired shade of orange into my actual signature. Right now, I'm just using font color = "orange" Enigma ^msg! 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This code: <font color="#ff7700">Orange</font>

Gives this result: Orange

You can get the hex codes from a color chart. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma ^msg! 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that people would realize the signatures talk page is for signatures -- You'd think so, but since it's linked every time you edit, it gets a lot of random vandalism and tests. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"(talk)" in my signature - a MediaWiki versioning thing?

• On Wikipedia, four tildes result in: Tneumark (talk) date_time_info_here
• On MediaWiki wikis that I administer (1.9.3, not too old), four tildes result in: Tneumark date_time_info_here

Is there a setting or something that makes the "(talk)" section display? Is there a better place to ask this question? Timneu22 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Signature, and the archived thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 5#User signatures should link to both the user page and user talk page by default, which should answer any questions :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick response. However, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. My wiki didn't have a "MediaWiki:Signature" page (I did add it), so does this mean my version (1.9.3) is too old?? Am I supposed to do something else? It doesn't seem like I need to upgrade my entire wiki for this one little change. Please let me know what I need to do. Thanks in advance for your help. Timneu22 (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like I just add the code to parser.php. ThanksTimneu22 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What a joke

Instead of having to manually put four tildas at the end of all your posts, your signature should just be added automatically (which it is, albeit when it's automatic it notes that the comment was initially unsigned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, but is it physically possible? Mouse is back 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are very good reasons not to do this. For instance, if I go back an edit my comment, should a signature be inserted in the middle of the previous comment? Obviously not.

Watch SineBot closely, and you will see what I mean. 99+% of the time, SineBot gets it right, but every now and then it does something stupid. This is because a machine can never fully guess when you are making a new comment (needs a sig) and when you are editing or moving around older comments (no sig). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that it would clutter up the history of discussion pages with signatures. Mr.Z-man 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree totallyyy!!! <3!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.96.75 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Include signature in template

I want to write a template which includes ~~~~. When this template is used, tilda's should be rendered. By default tilda's are replaced when I create the template and when template is used I see the signature of the template creater (instead of template user). Is there any way to do that? --iyigun (talk) 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikicode like so: ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>

I think. Copied from one of the various welcome templates. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried this. Yes, tilda's are not replaced with my signature on template creation. But when I use the template I see only ~~~~. Tilda's are not replaced with my signature on template usage neither. Do you have any ideas?

well no not really maybe you could try to lik do something about it but i really dont understand what you are trying to say maybe you should put it in a less complicated way then you could probably get some help thanks hun!!♥♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malonmartin (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do if someone doesn't seem to want a signature?

IP 124.168.215.205 is making comments in talk pages, and not only doesn't he/she sign, but she uses the !nosign! edit summary to prevent SineBot from fixing it. Should the IP's wish to not ever have a sig be respected? Or should I go ahead and add unsigned templates to his/her comments?

I am assuming this is some misguided attempt at privacy, but since everyone can see the IP in the revision history anyway, I just don't see any point to it... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Sherlock, you've got it, posting a dynamic IP is pointless. Make it mandatory, or take heed of the nosign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.205 (talk • contribs)

FYI, despite the warning at the top of the page instructing us not to ask questions here, I checked the reference desk and it redirected me right back to WP:SIG, ha ha ha... Anyway, I am also asking here because WP:SIG should cover this case. I know it is a rare case, but I am at a loss as to what I should do, and I think the article needs to cover it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's optional, and it is, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.205 (talk • contribs)

Okay, but do you see how confusing the above conversation has become? At least sign it with like, "--Me" or some crap like that. If you don't sign at all, then nobody has any freaking idea who is saying what. And I can still see your IP address, so it's not like there is any added privacy here...

I am not convinced it is optional, that's why I asked on this Talk page. I think it may in fact not be optional. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Signing comments is not optional; if they are not signed, this disrupts the automatic archiving on numerous pages. If the IP user continues to do this after explanation, I would progress to warnings and then a block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this IP is also the person putting the fake signatures here. I'll leave a note. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I put the "fake" signatures, as a temporary compromise. The IP added comments with no sig, which were interleaved with my comments after the fact, which as you can guess made the conversation completely unreadable. Since I had not yet gotten your clarification that sigs are non-optional, I decided to temporarily compromise by putting the "fake" sigs in for him/her, so the conversation could at least be read.

I will replace with real sigs now... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When you use the {{unsigned}} template, it helps to copy the date as well as the user name (from the history page). Archiving bots typically require that every post is signed and dated before they will consider archiving a section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section

I can't imagine this comes up that frequently, but just in case, I propose adding the following section to WP:SIG:

(begin proposed new section)

Are signatures optional?

Signing posts on Talk pages is mandatory, as failure to do so interferes with the operation of various archival bots, as well as making it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to follow the flow of a conversation. In general, though, a user should not be blocked even for repeated failure to sign their posts, as it is a common mistake and is usually not particularly disruptive due to the fact that another user or bot can simply add an appropriate signature later.

An exception would be if a user repeatedly abused the !nosign! edit summary and/or removed the {{unsigned}} template added by other users. That behavior is not acceptable, and the offending user should be warned as such, with the possibility of an eventual block if the errant behavior continues.

(end proposed new section)

Comments? Is it overkill? This is the first time I've ever seen this happen, but I was sort of at a loss as to what to do... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The page already says "Any post made to user talk pages, article talk pages, or other discussion pages should be signed." A user who continues (not out of negligence or by accident) to intentionally disregard that advice can certainly be warned and, if necessary, blocked for a short period of time. But in every case I've ever seen, a friendly note is enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that both provided reasons (archival bots and "flow of a conversation") also call for prohibition of non-standard timestamps. It might seem clever to some users to sign with something like 2008.03.21 15:49, but other users are forced to slow down and parse these non-standard timestamps, I don't think this issue is covered by WP:SIG —AlexSm 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

There's a big difference between "should be" and "mandatory", in my mind at least... If it said "must be," I would have taken that to mean non-optional, but "should be" could be interpreted as preferred-but-optional (e.g. a user "shouldn't" blank comments on their Talk page, since archiving is preferred, but under most circumstances they are still allowed to do it)

That said, if nobody else has ever seen another case like that one we just had, I won't sweat it. I think it's probably a rare case too. Certainly blew my mind that he/she knew about the !nosign! feature, but didn't understand/care how disruptive an unsigned comment is! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of policy question

Suppose I wanted to put a link in my signature that would be directed to an internal page like AGFC. Would that be allowed? Discouraged?--Filll (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Internal links are generally ok. Just keep the code and end-result-appearance simple, and everyone will be happy. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of templates

this part is full of flaws. no need to be re-cached as they are substed so they don't get updated! – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I feel like I'm being watched) 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Information about B Sc. Agriculture degree

Dear Sir, I Thanks for your valuable response and guidance. The question putup by me has not been understood in correct sense. I am intrested to know that the B Sc. Agriculture degree awarded by Birbahadur Singh Purvanchl Viswavidyalya, Jaun Pur UP. India is science stream or Arts stream. Some says it is Arts stream and some say that it belongs to science stream. How is the classification of courses carried out in universities in UP. Is there any governining body which desids the classification. Is there any Government order regarding the classification. The university does not respond to email. Please provide the Web address of the sites which may be usefull in resolving this issue.

Thanking You, Yours sincearly, Satish Chandra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.179.127 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking at the Reference desk, but you might have better luck asking at the regional Wikipedia. See the list of languages at http://wikipedia.org/ to find a Wikipedia in your own language. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BRUSHLESS EXCITATION

dear sir, i logged on to your web site with the hope of getting information regarding BRUSHLESS EXCITATION SYSTEM, which are now commonly used in synchronous generators. this page couldn't be of much help to me. insted of focussing on the cost and effeciency, your focus should be extended to: the principle of operation, construction and design of the machine as well. as a student i'll be more interested in the above mentioned spheres. thank you constant visitor

Spam honeypot?

This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma ^message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's linked from {{unsigned}}, which a lot of new users are going to see; that may be why many of them end up here. And spammers are more likely to be new users than established users. --ais523 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

templates?

If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

templates?

If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How?

Can someone tell me in simple step-by-step terms as to how to change my sig color, size, etc.? Thanks  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam honeypot?

This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma ^message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's linked from {{unsigned}}, which a lot of new users are going to see; that may be why many of them end up here. And spammers are more likely to be new users than established users. --ais523 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto-sign?

Is there any obvious reason why new code can't eventually be added so that all talk page edits by logged-in users are automatically signed? Four tildes isn't a huge hassle except for those of us with shoddy memories... Seb144 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) <-- I remembered!

does this now happen? i got to this page because i forgot to sign my last post and it magically popped up 'Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.345.34.40....' i'll check by not signing this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.87 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a bot, User:SineBot, that watches for unsigned posts and adds the appropriate template to identify who made them. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

template usage

It states on the page that using a template for a signature is forbidden, with the main reason given as that it is subject to vandalism. If I have my signature template protected, so that no vandalism can occur on it, will it be permitted then? --fone4me 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the section carefully. There are more reasons given than the one you have chosen to supply, above.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The second point doesn't apply, since archiving will still archive my sig. --fone4me 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the point where the system administrators said to worry about the performance drain. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense that the signature text field has a fixed character limit. It's there for a reason :) Gary King (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the point about archiving. Most archiving bots parse the sig to decide whether to archive the page. They don't recognise templates as signature so it will indeed be a problem. In what circumstances did you think the template thing is a problem? And what makes you think your use of templates is special Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose?

I'm afraid I don't see the point. When I was too ignorant to sign my post, the following text was appended: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)".

When I edited my post, adding ~~~~ at the end, this was changed to "Joe Avins (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)". So, it has my name instead of my username. If the statement that the comment was unsigned had not been present, there would be no difference of note at all! My username is as good as my name; who cares?

Okay, so it's considered good etiquette to sign each post. So I'll sign each post. But really, what's the point? Joe Avins (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The "unsigned signature" thing is not an automatic feature, that was someone else comming along and adding the {{unsigned}} template at the end if your comment to help others figure out how said what. Granted there is at least one automated bot out there that is pretty good at catching and atributing unsigned comments on most talk pages, but it's not rely something you should be relying on, so just sign your own commetns. --Sherool (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the bots are run by contributors. They can go down at any time, may start to misbehave and have to be blocked, can make mistakes and can miss things. You should not be relying on user bots to do something you should be doing yourself. From a editor POV, you're liable to annoy others and more likely to be ignored if you always don't sign your posts. You may not think that's fair, but from ther alternative POV, why should other people waste their time with people who can't follow basic etiquette. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks bot for signing this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.35.146 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I made wp:unsigned redirect to the Dealing with unsigned comments section, if that's okay. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Colour in signatures

This page says "if you must use color...". What about the advantage of using colour - that your signature is easier to pick out among others, so it is easier to follow who said what? Richard001 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it differentiates. Makes it a more "personal" signature. Not necessary. Vast majority of editors just leave their signature as the default. Enigma ^message 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much colour is more likely to be distraction... Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline Review

The following discussion 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.

---

In a recent WP:AN discussion it became clear that there are no real guidelines on acceptable (or unacceptable) signatures. There is also no defined process for dealing with an inappropriate signature. It has been suggested that WP:SIG contain language on proper signatures (probably similar to WP:USER NAME and include a resolution process for violations. At this point I would like to suggest we make a list of blatantly inappropriate signatures and see if we can use that list to write some guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the restrictions in signatures should, by and large, match the restrictions on user names (with some additional thought given to format as well as content). Offensive signatures, blatantly promotional signatures, intentionally disruptive signatures - should be obvious picks. I believe these should be tackled first, and then thought can be given to issues that are more unique to signatures. Shereth 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that WP:IU section actually includes signature. So we have a policy that touches on signatures. However the next section in there that talks about dealing with the user name does not mention signatures. It seems we might make this easy by amending that section to include signatures. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This was last brought up (afaik) in Jan 2007 - see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 3#Nice signatures, which eventually led to bugzilla:8458, which gave us the current 255 character limit.

There are a few galleries (see User:Athaenara/Gallery and more links at the bottom) of distracting signatures. Whether distracting is the same thing as disruptive, is apparently subjective!

Personally, I wish everyone used the default signature, and kept aesthetic-personalization to their userpages. However, I realize that I'm outnumbered by the colorfully-inclined... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we made User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js into a user-Gadget (with user-customizable color), we could solve two birds with one stone? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked signatures

subhead added and thread split/refactored by -- Quiddity (talk) at 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A tangential example: I asked admin Docu just a few days ago, to include a link in his/her signature, but was gently rebuffed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to provide a user- or user talk page link is a problem per the guideline, which reads: "It is common practice to include a link to your user page or user talk page (often both); the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." The lack of timestamp is also problematic (not on the user's talk page, necessarily, but on other talk pages). I've left the user a message asking him to modify his sig. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guideline review (2)

subhead added by User:Docu at 06:12, 2008 September 18 (UTC)

A somewhat recent change was made following a brief discussion: 1 noting problems like "The user's sig does not link to either their user or talk page and their actual user name is not reflected in the sig, instead there is only a nonexistent pseudonym" and 2 noting "both using a sig with non-standard form of their user name (or bearing no relation at all to their user id, indeed), and with no link, which would be a recipe for untold consternation.". I think this describes well problematic signatures and we should fine tune the current guideline accordingly. -- User:Docu

That "somewhat recent" (sic) change was made in July 2007 (your undated comment was posted on 10 September 2008); and your recent edit to provide an exclusion to it was quickly reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a pointer, the 3rd link discussing linkless signatures is at Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#No links in a signature. As admin John Reaves says there, "Not including a link is borderline disruption." -- Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That comment was made after the change and besides, your quote doesn't give any explanation. -- User:Docu

Docu's unlinked, undated signature

subhead added by -- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have (re)refactored the original discussion, to split apart the two separate topics. This was initially a potentially productive thread about "guideline review", that I hope doesn't get derailed by a discussion about linkless signatures.

I'm happy to see you have added a link to yours; hopefully you will also add a timestamp, to help make threads easier to follow for all fellow-editors, and to aid archival bots that rely upon timestamps. Perhaps you could explain why you are so reticent to use them, despite all the requests? (I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better (clearer, more consistent); not to get into an argument) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My post was in regards to guideline review. If you like to discuss timestamps, you could open a new topic. Besides, would like to add anything in response to my question? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([1])

None of your previous comments in this thread included a question mark. Which part was a question? I'll guess, and answer what I think you are talking about...

Yes, the comment was made after the change; I never claimed otherwise - I said it was a 3rd thread discussing linkless signatures, which it is.

The quote doesn't need any explanation. It is self-explanatory: If you have a signature without a link, you are (borderline) causing a purposeful disruption. (it is disruptive as explained to you in the threads linked below)

1. Will you answer the 2 admins and 2 editors ([2] and [3]) who have asked you why you are reluctant to include a link to your user/talkpage, and why you still don't include a timestamp?
2. Why you are being so defensive about this (even changing the guideline to get around it), instead of just explaining your position against links/timestamps??

If we understand your position, we might be able to sympathize or even help. Please! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the page, you can read that the quote from John Reaves is in response to somewhat complicated explanation given by Alex_Smotrov which hightlights problematic signatures without links: "some users also changed their nickname with every post (cause "hey, that's allowed as well")". Any of the above explanations highlight a clear problem, i.e. signatures unrelated to user names presented in a way that they don't allow to identify clearly the users. Do we agree on this point? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([4])

Your use of a signature without a link to your user and/ or talk page, and without a date-time stamp, causes problems and extra work for me; and apparently clearly does so for other editors too. Do you dispute this point? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the extra work you got? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([5])

Why do you respond to questions with questions, and not answers? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I agree or I disagree with you if I don't bother explaining what extra work I caused you. (You did write above "Your use of a signature without a link .. causes .. extra work for me"). -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([6])

I've raised this issue here. Adambro (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Docu: I did indeed say that. Please assume that I do so in good faith; and address the problem. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to address your problem. You would help us, if you'd explain the extra work you had. If you are not interested in guideline review, you should just leave me a note on my talk page (it's here BTW). -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([7])

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.