Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 1

message: Supporters of this rule include: Ed Poor,
Koyaanis Qatsi (strongly),Hmrox,
Eclecticology(mostly, but I do forget to do it sometimes),
JHK, 24 (mostly), user:Tsazack, Hyacinth, Jusjih (though I occasionally forget),
Pgan002 (automatic signatures)
Opponents of this rule include: Anon.
----
What was the point of implementing the "sig" preferences option? Having one name on your user page and something completely different in the sig is just daft. It serves no purpose other than to confuse -- Tarquin 11:42 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
:Your opinion about what is daft, is noted, Tarquin. May I presume that you know of what you speak? -豎眩sv</Strong>
:I have changed my username to match my sig.  This is at least the third time I have made changes purely to please Tarquin.  I hope he can now wiki in peace. -º¡º
: I agree, signatures should be immutable, defined as the name and a "(Talk)" link.
-----
Something just struck me. Why when we write ~~~~ does it link to the user page and not the user talk page? When we hit someone's usernic we usually want to leave them a message, not read their main page. I've been leaving a message on some pages in visiting four people, it involved eight journeys, to a user page, then talk page, next user page, then talk page, etc etc. Can that be changed? After all, if we want to see their user page, we can always go to it from the talk page, but as 9 times out of 10 we want the talk page, it would make sense to make it the default, with the longer route reserved for the rare occasions when we actually want to go to their main page. Any observations? FearÉIREANN 01:35 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: This has come up before and there are arguments for and against it. One major problem with that approach is that we will end up with mixed signature types unless we do a massive conversion, which might be confusing. Also, I think links should reflect the content of their pages -- when I click on a user name, I expect to see something about that user.
: There should be both. Any links to prior discussions? -Pgan002
: On the other hand, it is clearly very inconvenient to post comments with our current system. Brion has written a quick hack to put at least a shortcut to the edit page on the user page ("Leave a comment for this user"); this would mean that you effectively have to click the same number of times as with your solution. Eventually what I would love to see are some nice tiny icons that appear next to each username, one, maybe like the blue (i) logo, shows the user page, one, maybe a speech bubble, shows the talk page, one, a speech bubble with an exclamation mark in it, opens the talk page in edit mode. Because that would be much different from the sigs we have now, it should be reasonably non-confusing. In the meantime, I think Brion's solution should work fine. --Eloquence 02:16 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: agreed -Smack
This comment was the first reply to Jtdirl, but clearly he didn't like it: Maybe a dual link would be better. -- Tim Starling (Talk) 01:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh sugar! Sorry Tim it must have got erased in the edit conflict I found myself in. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. (Or as we supposed Irish speakers would say Tá brón orm!) FearÉIREANN 05:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:It's alright, it was just an honest mistake, and easily corrected. Save the multilingual apologies for when you burn down my house or shoot me or something. -- Tim Starling 05:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::New comment on old talk - Note that this old problem has been mitigated to an extent - By fiddling with the nickname string in the user preferences it is possible to provide a link to both the user page and user talk page in the same signature. The software puts   sig   around the sig string. So by making the sig string  nickname ]] [[User_talk:UserName|(talk)  you end up with  nickname  (talk) replacing ~~~~ and a get a link to both pages. Many users now implement this (with lots of interesting variants! Word has it that User:Dori was the first to come up with this trick. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't the default signature be like this? -Pgan002 01:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters 

message: I think it would be nice if the timestamps generated by ~~~~ were displayed in your local time. Your timezone is something you can set in your preferences, and pages like "my watchlist" display dates in your local time. Also, properly formatted dates (such as November 8 1980) are displayed according to your preferences. 
I'm not sure where the proper forum to voice this opinion is, so I thought I'd start here. Any thoughts? Has this been proposed and rejected already? JerryOrr 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When previewing, you'll note the time remains the 4 tildes in the editing field, and is automagically updated in the actual preview part. As soon as you save the page, the stamp becomes raw text, meaning something static that cannot/won't change. Your suggestion would need a change in the Wiki software, making sigs/stamps features a little bit of code instead of the raw time. Retodon8 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timestamp generated by <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

message: I am trying to make my signature comply with ISO 8601 international standard date format. I have that set correctly in my user preferences, but no matter what I do I can't seem to get my signature to output with the proper date format. I have tried overriding the "Nickname" preference, inserting:
    -- 
but that does not insert the actual current date and time, it merely inserts the variables. This is more than a little frustrating: ISO 8601 is the international standard date format, and it ought not to be this much work to get Wikipedia to display dates correctly rather than in the bizarre "day month year" format that appears to be the default. Is there something I am missing? BBlackmoor (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct your date preferences, not the signature preferences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first thing I tried. My date preferences appear to have no effect on what my signature looks like. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Mzajac might be able to help you as he too has this format. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with signature date, please

message: Is there a way to take away the option, so people are forced to give the ~~~ or ~~~~ into their post?
ImaTard 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What ImaTard means is, isn't there a way to make people sign their names, or, if they are not members, numbers, so we can at least relate to them?--ViolinGirl 20:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If it is Suspicious like above then I will check the history.  If not then I won't.  But the history page isn't proof anyway.  Admins can Purge Part of the history out of a page such as to remove sensitive information.  Although their usually are telltale sines of such changes.  If they add a fake signature then it would show up on the page history.  If you change the page history then it will show up on the deletion log.  Some developer could remove it form the deletion log but than some other place might give it away like a mirror sight that didn't update it's cache or an archive sight Wayback--E-Bod 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced Signatures 

message: A recent Arbcom decision mandated (in that particular case) use of a "non-confusing" signature.  This would seem to be the place to address the issue of "confusing" sigs in general.  In particular, ought it to be the case that signatures:
*Link to the user's own user (and/or talk) page;
*Textually contain, or visually resemble the user's actual username; and/or
*Be free of meta-syntax, that would cause problems if copied verbatim.
Two of the above would have been possibly at issue in the case I'm thinking of, though no standard of confusing/non-confusing was actually specified.  Other instances also spring to mind.  Is there consensus for general guidance as to any of the above?  Alai 19:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-confusing" sigs. 

message: Hi,
Just wondering, what do people think of renaming this page to Wikipedia:Please sign your posts on talk pages.
BenAveling 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That could involve a lot of policy renames, if we extend the principle...  Mind you, this is perhaps the exception in being in the imperative.  What about Wikipedia:Signing your posts on talk pages?  Alai 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the imperative is fine - that's the way this tag is usally used.  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Rename? 

message: The image server is over-stressed again, and 'vanity' user sigs are one of the most expendable uses of images (IMHO, of course). Can we please ban them instead of just "discourage"ing them, as discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Unnecessary_images_are_killing_performance.2C_and_should_be_banned. I'd like to see stronger admonitions against blinking and Unicode, etc., as well--I don't know what they are, but this user sig shows as nothing but question marks or boxes on IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera. Niteowlneils 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's make 'no images' MUCH stronger 

message: Can anyone help? I didn't change anything and all of a sudden it was like this.  Grant65(Talk) 09:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed that too. You need to change your Prefs, check the '[v] raw signature' and edit your nickname to a *full* link. HTH, --bitterMan.lha 15:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed I was in the same boat today and just couldn't figure out what was wrong. Thanks for the help there. Doug A Scott (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This happened to me, as well.  What on earth? John k 07:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page link in my signature has stopped working

message: ...or should they? Please join the discussion there. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Signatures should not contain images]] 

message: Is there a template for the previous comment was from anon user xx.yy.zz?  I couldn't find it under 'cat:Wikipedia_templates' or similar.  I'd be happy to link it in somewhere. Srl 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks Srl 01:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon sigs 

message: :Add any additional comments
* Okay, I'll bite. Oppose. I prefer conciseness over politeness in titles. (Besides, when they say "sign your talk pages", I think they really mean it—"please" can sometimes be disingenuous; for example, how often have you seen those little stickers on rental tapes (in the USA anyways) that read: "Please rewind—or 50 cents charge!")-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 10:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: I propose that we add this to the WhatToAvoid section. Zocky 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass posting of links to a particular website is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Posting a link to an external website with each comment you make on a talk page is likely to be viewed as spamming or an attempt to improve your website's ranking on search engines. If you have to tell other Wikipedians about a good website that you are associated with, please do so on your user page.
;comments
*Agreed. It seems necessary. For example, User:Stirling Newberry has essentially said on User talk:Zocky that he will not stop until policy comes about against him. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 19:44
*Agreed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in signatures 

message: There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. Please don't remove it simply because you think the summary is inaccurate for this guideline. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One line summary

message: I've recently tried signin documents by manually typing in the date, because I didn't like the default format.  However, a couple of other user were concerned, even after omitting the date with 3 tildes.  I was wondering if it was possible to format the date, so it shows the Month DD, Year, X:XX AM rather than DD Month, Year 01:23 -- Eddie 08:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thtmkssmchsnssttmptngtwrtnglshwthtspcsrvwls. (That says "That makes as much sense as attempting to write English without spaces or vowels", for those of you who are still sucking at your mummy's teat of irrationality.) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, then how to modify date in signature? Here (in en wiki) it is not a big problem, but in some other wikis it is. -Yyy 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting the Date 

message: I've had to deal with a user to refuses to sign his comments on the talk pages. He's made a lot of comments, so going through each one and adding  is not easy to do. What should I do about it? At what point are unsigned comments vandalism? Could they be removed? AucamanTalk 09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen many failures to sign comments on the talk pages. I consider unsigned comments vandalism when the contents are very meaningless, but I am not very sure whether to remove the vandalism. I may prefer adding .--Jusjih 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how can it be vandalism if this is just a guideline, rather than policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.192.144 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refusal to sign comments

message: This is listed as a guideline, but I see no reason that it shouldn't be a policy. Thoughts? android79 16:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, doing it this way probably prevents bickering over what is and isn't covered by the policy/guideline. I also have to wonder about the part about transclusion, where it says "imagine what it would be like if everyone did that"... actually, I don't have to imagine it; almost everyone does that on the Homestar Runner Wiki, and it apparently doesn't cause problems. But maybe there's something about Wikipedia so that it wouldn't work the same way? (for instance, they apparently have had issues with our version of the "new messages" bar, with the "last change" link). Yeltensic42 don't panic 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline or policy? 

message: * Halló! I just want to drop a note about "|"-characters in signatures which are / where very common. With such a signature you will not be able to sign inside templates.
* A signature that is valid in all projects looks like
 · [ Th] · T
* When refering to other projects it is most safe to use "generic namespace names". Note That only "w:en:" and "m:" are interwiki prefixes who work in all Wikimedia Foundation projects known to me. Bests regards Gangleri · Th · T 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "|"'s in signatures 

message: Is it ok to add an explanation on using the unsigned template to the main page? Something like this...
===Dealing with unsigned comments===
The template  can be used at the end of an unsigned comment to attach the username or ip to the comment.
Usage

Example
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by 88.88.88.88 (talk • contribs) .
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by John Doe (talk • contribs) .
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by John Doe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC).
----
I added the above to the page.  For more discussion, see the following:Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Response_to_removal_of_unsigned_templates.3F
Template_talk:Unsigned#Removal_of_message_by_user
Shawnc 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned template 

message: The template  can be used at the end of an unsigned comment to attach the username or ip to the comment.
Usage

Example
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by 88.88.88.88 (talk • contribs) .
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by John Doe (talk • contribs) .
 becomes —This unsigned comment was added by John Doe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC).
----
I added the above to the page.  For more discussion, see the following:Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Response_to_removal_of_unsigned_templates.3F
Template_talk:Unsigned#Removal_of_message_by_user
Shawnc 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dealing with unsigned comments

message: Why does 8 ~s in a row make this signature:
:02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the software takes the first five ~ to mean "DATE" and the latter three ~ to mean "NAME". If your question is why it doesnt turn out as "NAMEDATE NAMEDATE" or "DATE NAME", that's pretty easy to: The software checks for five consecutive ~ first, then for four consecutive ~, and for three consecutive ~ last, so that "~~~~~" doesn't turn out as "NAME ~~" instead of "DATE"... Hope I could help! 12:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eight ~s 

message: Based on a comment on Template talk:Unsigned, and my experience with a disruptive user on Talk:Heaven's Stairway, I would like to know what the appropriate response should be for a user who repeatedly removes unsigned templates.  —Viriditas | Talk 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to removal of unsigned templates?

message: A lot of users I've seen have chosen to sign their name in the Cyrillic alphabet, for aesthetic purposes I assume. However this renders their signature practically unreadable to those English speakers who do not read Cyrillic (who, dare I say, may be in the majority?). I'm a big opponent of using signatures that do not easily convey someone's true username so I'd like to add to WP:SIG a note about not using Cyrillic. Is there any support for this? GT 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming you are talking about en.wp then I agree, a romanisation should be given where possible. It doesn't seem too much to ask the user to sign their name in the appropriate alphabet and if a user can read a language well enough to contribute then that user can probably sign their name with that language too. This seems to be wikipedia policy for articles so I can't see why it shouldn't also apply to discussion pages. — Flooq (Talk) @ 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, the users can always just click on the name to get the user name if they really need to know it. JoshuaZ 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This should also apply to discussion pages to create conformity. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic signatures 

message: A small thing, but I find that  is more often useful to me than , and was surprised not to find it in the Dealing with unsigned comments section.  As noted in the template's talk page, it is perfect for use when cut-n-pasting from page histories.  Any problem with adding this here as a one line mention?  Shenme 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's much more useful than . ~MDD4696 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsigned2 useful 

message: At least one arbitration case contains a policy principle relevant to signatures.  I have accordingly added the following statement:
: A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature affects other users, and a user with an unsuitable signature may be required to change it (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-).
--Tony Sidaway 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-]]

message: I'm all for banning images from sigs, if for no other reason than it creating tonnes of extra work when a sig image is deemed to be redundant, for example several old reduldant flag images still linger because they are still used on a couple of hundred talk pages, deletion discussions and so on. In such cases sig images add considerabe amounts of work with image cleanup, we can not expect images to last forever. If someone wants to rename, or replace a image with a better version and the old image happens to have been used in a sig it creats tonnes of extra work. Since File links only show 500 links it means that if the image is used across hundreds of talk pages you have to remove all ocurances of the image from those pages just to be eable to see if the image is actualy used in some articles too. Even if that issue is fixed it would still be a lot of extra work to sift though all the links to find "legitemate" users before the image is deleted (wich would leave tonnes of ugly redlinks all over the talk pages. I don't think the bandwidth issue is a major problem though, most sig images are tiny, and images can be used tastefully, and generaly don't clutter up the wikicode, I'm most concerned about the the "spam" to the file links, and such. --Sherool (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support banning images in signatures, and would add a ban on super- and sub-script as well as large and small font sizes.  Exploding Boy 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that banning any particular styling would be rather difficult to generate consensus on. Let's try to start with images and a max signature length. ~MDD4696 23:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm all for imposing restrictions on sigs, and I think I, for the most part, could agree with this proposal. I'd suggest, however, that one image, a small .png, is not extremely excessive, though certainly not preferable. Super- and sub-scripts within signatures don't bother me much, as long as I can tell what link takes me where. What I absolutely cannot stand are imbedded links that give no indication of where the link will take me; i.e., I can't stand the small green Esperanzian e's and, as with Mdd4696, where part of the sig takes me to a talk page, part to a user page, and part to contribs. I have no problem with Example T/C or Example (something that somehow means talk), just so long as I know what each link does. (In fact, I think I'd prefer if everyone would link his sig in some form to his talk page.) Colors, etc., don't bother me much until I go to write a reply and can't read through all of the wikicode to figure out who I'm talking too, which I think could be solved by imposing a size limit on the sig. In other words, let's turn this baby into a proposal! AmiDaniel (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Heh, I rather like my signature... it's all about being subtle, you know? I guess the reason it doesn't bother me is that I don't mind hovering the mouse over a link for the title to pop up, but I can see how it could get annoying. ~MDD4696 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't think we have to worry about this being much of a problem for the devs, although we could ask. ~MDD4696 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * It's actually not, JohnnyBGood, that's why I brought it up here. There have been numerous instances of intrusive signatures to the point where I felt it was becoming a problem. Wikipedia:Signature Poll was created recently I believe as a result of the increasingly intricate signatures. ~MDD4696 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits on images 

message: Another issue I just thought of: Which is more appropriate? A technical solution or policy? A technical solution would be the simplest to implement I believe, and we could make a note on WP:SIG that images were disabled by consensus. ~MDD4696 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the image issue has been discussed several times before. I think that this is in favor of a technical solution: despite previous consensus against images, people are still using them. ~MDD4696 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde made the very valid point that it is still possible to have signatures with images even if it is disabled in the preferences. ~MDD4696 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical versus Policy 

message: Sign your name in the section indicating your position on images in signatures. Be sure to take a look at the above discussion if you haven't already, and add any additional comments there. This poll ends at 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a bug on Mediazilla... we'll see what the devs say. ~MDD4696 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: =====Allow images in signatures=====
# Kusma (討論) 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: # Kusma (討論) 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allow images in signatures

message: # ~MDD4696 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbid images in signatures

message: =====No changes regarding signature length=====
#Existing policy is clear that editors with improper signatures can be required to change them (-Ril- arbitration).  No change to policy is required. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: #Existing policy is clear that editors with improper signatures can be required to change them (-Ril- arbitration).  No change to policy is required. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No changes regarding signature length

message: # to a signature and optional talk page link.  Exploding Boy 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrict signature length

message: =====Implement as policy=====
# Exploding Boy 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a bug on Mediazilla... we'll see what the devs say. ~MDD4696 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: # Exploding Boy 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implement as policy

message: # Although I prefer simple sigs, it is unreasonable to force users not to edit as they please...which is why a guideline would be a good alternative.--Osbus 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implement as guideline

message: # ~MDD4696 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a bug on Mediazilla... we'll see what the devs say. ~MDD4696 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implement technically

message: I have added the following:
: Persistent refusal to react in a reasonable way to complaints about your signature may result in a brief block, though this is controversial.
I hope that this is acceptable as a reasonable description of the possible consequences of reacting in a disruptive manner to reasonable complaints about a particularly obnoxious signature. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An addition on the possible consequences of persistent refusal to deal reasonably with complaints

message: Exploding Boy has deleted in the examples section the usage of superscript "" for signatures, which I believe to be inappropriately pre-emptive. This appears to be based on his expressed view that he would "add a ban on super- and sub-script", stated above. As the issue of such usage has not been discussed-- and in fact, may be one of the most widely used customisations for signatures-- I would suggest this has no consensus for removal.—LeflymanTalk 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're only examples.  Removing the superscript doesn't remove the ability to use superscript in signatures, and doesn't create a policy.  As you said, these are examples.  Why was there superscript in them in the first place?  Exploding Boy 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Exactly because they are examples of "Customizing your signature", which, when removed, make the examples seem kind of pointless. As I noted, superscript is likely the most used customisation; removing it from the example is tantamount to "hiding" it for new users. If you believe that superscripting should be discouraged, propose a statement to that effect, but don't pre-emptively remove it from the example, please.—LeflymanTalk 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's not a strawman argument (but this is rapidly becoming a road to nowhere).  Again, the purpose of the example is to show users some of what's possible in signature customization not all.  Removing the superscript (only!) does not prevent any user from using superscript.  It doesn't change the policy.  It really doesn't change anything.  And so far, only you seem to have a problem with it (and I note you use superscript in your signature).  Exploding Boy 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "superscript" in examples 

message: What's the point?  Can we get rid of this please?  It really doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussions at hand.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you didn't see the point, I see why it's there. If it is bugging you and you want to make it a subpage? Have at it... it's a wiki. I think it makes a valid point, that this seems to have all of a sudden come up. That's not a bad thing, it just is. The way things are done here is a bit inside out from other communities that deliberate first and then make rules and then act on them, we act, then see what we did, then make guidelines to capture the defacto. That said I strenuously oppose censuring people for sigs unless we start with ones that use garish colors or obnoxious nonstandard cursors when displayed, rather than starting with the size of the sig when it's in edit text.  ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it almost unreadable with the "small" tags, and the "br" tags make it just  along list.  Perhaps someone could produce a chart of some sort.  I've still no idea what it's supposed to mean. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah.  I've made it into an image, but whatever happened to ?  Regardless, unless we think that there is some other venue that this was being discussed on, there doesn't appear to have been much chatter about sigs until right around the time we saw a block for having a long one.  The smaller chart is the mean signature link on AfD for a year.  Note that there is a fairly large increase, aroung 75%, with no increase in traffic on this page at all. - brenneman{L}  02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the block has stimulated discussion, much of it in favor of hard limits on signatures (worth discussing, though I oppose them as unnecessary and unpracticable).  This is what discussion pages are for, so I don't find it surprising and I don't still can't work out why this needs to be recorded in a chart. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also done a quick grab from six recent AfDs to see if the trend has continued.  The median from that sample was only 65.  However, looking at the distribution (see below) this doesn't mean that it's actually gone down.  It just means that I didn't grab one of the super-massive sigs that are around.  Looking over the data from last years afd and the sample that I took below, I'd say the median length of signtures hasn't changed much (about 25%), but that there has been an increase in the number of "top end" signatures.  Although we had 700+ signatures around a year ago, it's actually the increase in the 150-300 range that appears to be making a differance.  *cough* Esperanza *cough*  It's the "drunk at the footy" effect really:  A few really large signatures combined with a slight increase in the medium large signatures appears to be creating an impression that an overall trend that is much stronger than it actually is. - brenneman{L}  02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you gathered and charted the mean signature length on AfDs??? that's so incredibly geeky... way cool! I think the root question here is, what does this mean other than demonstrating how things seem to work here. Problems wax, get dealt with or not, and sometimes wane. While they're waxing is when actions outside policy and the backlash/acceptance of them seem to decide or codify what eventual policy is. I'm just starting to get this so sorry if I'm repeating the obvious to everyone else. I still think, though, that actions outside of policy have to be civil and can't go too far outside of consensus at the time, all at once, or things go whacked. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of posts to this page per day 

message: I've given this a start.  Just a bit of commonsense, really.  The key is parsimony.
: It is considered polite to include a link to your talk page for the use of people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person.  Outside that, it is probably wise to be parsimonious with internal links.  If you find a particular Wikipedia page useful, put a link into your browser bookmarks or favorites list, not your signature.
--Tony Sidaway 03:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick browse of any widely used page (WP:AN or WP:PUMP for instance) will show that this bit of "commonsense" is not that common.  Links to contributions and e-mails are frequent, and Esperanza is also a sprinkled liberally around.  At least one arbitrator has an internal link to contributions in their sig:  Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) Again, I'd much rather see a wider net cast on this discussion.brenneman{L}  07:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "Internal links" 

message: I'm deeply dissapointed by the entire way that this is being handled.  Do we work in a co-operative, consensual environment here or not?  Because what I'm seeing is full Tony power, stuff everyone else.  There appears to be a fundamental misunderstadning of the way that wikipedia works here.  When you make a change, you don't "own" that change, and "announcing" that change doesn't mean that it can't be reverted.  It doesn't mean that that change has to remain in place until you're convinced otherwise.  If someone reverts a change and explains why on talk, reverting back is bad form.brenneman{L}  04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're somewhat confused as to what happened here.  I performed an edit and then wrote it up.  You then blindly reverted it claiming that it hadn't been discussed.  I later reverted the asking you to examine the talk page to see that I had indeed discussed it.  You then proceeded to the talk page and wrote up your own earlier revert.  No ownership is implied, but I do warn you not to blindly revert edits by other editors, asking them to discuss them on the talk page without first checking to see if they have done just that.  If you continue to do so you will probably often find that you have ignored significant explanation and supporting arguments for an edit. --Tony Sidaway 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony, please do try and understand something: What contitutes "significant explanation and supporting arguments" to you may not be, in fact, enough.  There is room for others to disagree.  There is a differance between discussing something and telling us what you've done.  You and I have had this problem many, many times.  When we do not agree, you seem to feel as if once you "explain" than the discussion is over.  I looked at your explanation on the talk page and I do not agree.  I don't know how I can make that any more clear.  Just because you want the page to look a certain way, it doesn't have to look that way.  When someone asks you to discuss a change, actually wait for some back and forth to occur before sledgehammering your view onto the main page.  I'd encourage you to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club.  (Although I note you've once been removed from that list.)  It might also be a good idea for you to review Wikipedia:Edit war and consider further how they begin. - brenneman{L}  06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonious editing 

message: This sentence needs special notice because it represents a risk of serious disruption of the wiki, so I have bolded it in the text:
: Signature templates are also vandalism targets, and will be forever, even if the user leaves the project
--Tony Sidaway 12:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot even have a template in a signature that is not subst'd now unless it is behind another template or you do not use the built-in signatures; however, I can see cause for the section staying still. Kotepho 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's okay, but there's nothing, alas, to stop someone transcluding a template in place of a signature.  This can be done using javascript, has the same appearance, but also makes the wiki vulnerable. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis of vandalism danger

message: For those of you who likely have this page on their watch lists right now, I've been making quite a few changes this evening (and might have some more left in me).  My goal isn't to change the language in this document, just to clean it up a bit and unify the tone some.  In doing this, I may well change the meaning of some contested words or phrases.  I'm trying to work in small sections, in case someone feels the need to revert my changes (I've already noticed some editors have moved in to correct some of my typos).  In any case, that's what I'm up to.  --InkSplotch 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek, I think I started something.  I see we (User:Tony_Sidaway and User:Kotepho) are all on the same page (literally).  As an aside, I didn't even know you could use parser functions in a signature.  The very thought frightens me.  --InkSplotch 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony doesn't know that everyone isn't as erudite as him, but I think you did a better job than I did in general. Also, you can and at least one person does use parser functions for a different date format. Kotepho 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Erudite? --Tony Sidaway 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look at me, I had to look up "parsimonious" earlier, before I could change it.  --InkSplotch 12:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ah.  I plead "guilty as charged", m'lud.  --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many revisions by [[User:InkSplotch]] 

message: The name only mentions one aspect of this guideline.  Would Wikipedia:Signature or Wikipedia:Signature guidelines be more apt? Kotepho 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent suggestion.  --InkSplotch 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There were database problems earlier, but everything looks fine to me. Kotepho 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name (again)

message: Can we make signatures manditory? It isn't like anyone should have a reason why not to sign their posts as it is visible in history anyways... --Cat out 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what are we going to do, block people who don't sign? --Rory096 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if we can figure out who they are... (KIDDING! just look in the history) ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of the points outlined in the existing guideline are common sense, and they are only enumerated as a reference. This page is a prime candidate for instruction creep, and for something as variable as signatures, it's important that we keep the rules to a minimum. I would like to think that the vast majority of Wikipedians see how refusing to sign comments is counter-productive, such that the few isolated incidents there have been aren't justification enough to add a note here. I have come across one particularly stubborn user myself, and I can't see how any others like him would last long on the project. ~MDD4696 03:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline vs policy 

message: Aside from simple things, like adding a link to your talk page after your name, most of the signatures are just plain annoying. Signing with a name other than your actual username, including images, and including long mounds of code all get really annoying. I assume that custom sigs won't be banned, but for crying out loud, at least think of what you are doing.  You don't have to give your life's story every time you leave a comment on a talk page. BigDT 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use a custom signature to direct to my talk page (my user page is just a redirect anyway).  Custom signatures have been around for a long time and I personally recommend their use to provide a link to the talk page as well as the user page.  Contributions links, Esperanza links and the like are probably unnecessary because they're not likely to be used much and you can get them from the user page anyway. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any good use for custom signatures? 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hmrox (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 June 2006  (UTC)
:What do you mean? Of course you can customize your signature. Just don't let it get out of hand. ~MDD4696 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't we customize our sig?

message: ...this is a very odd thing to say, isn't it? What other guidelines have this kind of clause in them? 192.75.48.150 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with... whomever it was... that said that this guideline is not the place to say what a guideline is, if someone says that smack them with a cluestick.  The only part I really object to is the "If you think your sig meets this guideline, it might be a misunderstanding, so tell them off." part. The rest is fluff, but I can happily ignore it. Kotepho 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the blurb once, but missed that it was being re-added as I was also moving the section up, and I removed it again. - brenneman {L}  06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the quote from the page explaining what a policy versus a guideline is appeared way offtopic at the point where it was, so I removed it again. If you want to reinsert it, put it in a paragraph where it makes sense, not in "Dealing with unsigned comments". Kusma (討論) 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also would like to see it removed (or at least completely rewritten, the quote from the "What is a guideline" page really does not fit into this page). The points that not only policies, but also guidelines can also be enforced (like anything supported by consensus) does not have to be made on every single guideline page. Kusma (討論) 01:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kusma. Make it part of Wikipedia:Guidelines or something. Not here. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed. - brenneman {L}  13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you are asked to change your signature.... 

message: I removed the "what's a guideline" blurb when moving the remaining paragraph up.  Exploding boy restored the blurb, so it (I don't know how) got left behind when I moved the section into a higher subsection.  I removed it from it's "floating" position in the wrong paragraph.  Exploding boy restored in into its incorrect position.   Kusma again removed it from its incorrect position.  Exploding Boy again restored it, this time leaving it in two places.  Finally Kotepho removed it from the higher position.
I'd note that Exploding Boy has restored this phrase four times now.  I see neither consensus on this page nor in the edit history of the main page for inclusion of this off-topic reminder on what a guideline is.  I'd like it to be removed.
brenneman {L}  01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would like to see it removed (or at least completely rewritten, the quote from the "What is a guideline" page really does not fit into this page). The points that not only policies, but also guidelines can also be enforced (like anything supported by consensus) does not have to be made on every single guideline page. Kusma (討論) 01:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kusma. Make it part of Wikipedia:Guidelines or something. Not here. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed. - brenneman {L}  13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post confusion recap 

message: how do you like mine?--Bee(y)Ti 01:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see.  First, it takes up 8 lines in the edit window.  It contains all caps, and a lot of code.  It's got extra large fonts in it.  All in all, I'd say it goes against the spirit and letter of the guideline.  Exploding Boy 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait is that good or bad?--Bee(y)Ti 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.  Bad.  For 11 words that you've posted in this section, you've taken up sixteen lines of space.  Exploding Boy 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your signature is bad. Please change it before your next post. Try to cut the length in the edit window at least in half, and remove the shouting (ALL CAPS). Kusma (討論) 01:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions?--Bee(y)Ti 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How 'bout now?--—The preceding comment was added by Beeyti (talk • contribs) . 01:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now it's even worse.  I don't know what you've done, but your signature now intrudes on surrounding text maiking it impossible to read-.  Exploding Boy 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't change it yet--—The preceding comment was added by Beeyti (talk • contribs) . 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SIG 

message: I am not really good at talking to people about their sigs, so can somebody please talk to this user because his/her sig is 5 times larger than one of his/her comments. 
--GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - brenneman {L}  00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Robomaeyhem]] 

message: Some of the bullet points are a bit questionable.  I'll put them in full below, and comment on them individually for ease of response.brenneman 12:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your list, but I still feel the first two of the original (re:server load, and valdalism) should be included with it.  --InkSplotch 12:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One problem I encountered the other day was a large discussion page (WP:TFD) took ages to load. This was not because of its size but because it contained numerous signatures with images in them, and upload.wikimedia.org was at that time responding rather slowly to requests.  So the server load problem does seem to be a real one. Because images add absolutely nothing of use to the dialog, this is problematic behavior. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd prefer to leave out the vandalism so as not to give anyone ideas.  And the server load should have developer commentary, has anyone asked? - brenneman {L}  05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Do we have some examples to refer to? - brenneman {L}  05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well :Image:Peru flag large.png and :Image:Star of life2.png to name a couple. --Sherool (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find that a much more compelling argument than vauge talk about server load or hypothetical browser problems.  I've moved it to the top of the list above and added a subsection above your comment to make it easier to link right to it when suggesting someone remove an image.  The actual item "They create a large number of "What links here" entries on the image page" could use a bit more punch, though. - brenneman {L}  23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images are eeevil reasoning 

message: Actualy it's "file links" not "what links here", this is particularly bad because "File links" have no paging mechanism (I have a RFE filed on that at bugzilla, don't remember the # offhand though) and they only show the "top" 500 links, meaning without access to the actual database (like a toolserver script) there is no way to determine all the pages that link to an image. This is something of a pain when doing image maintainance, obsolete images hang around for years becuse it is hard to "safely" delete them when used across thousands of talk pages. You eitehr have to replace the lot (wich is a lot of work, even with AWB, or you will leave redlinks all over the place, wich tend to cause yelling... --Sherool (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we have some examples to refer to? - brenneman {L}  05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well :Image:Peru flag large.png and :Image:Star of life2.png to name a couple. --Sherool (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find that a much more compelling argument than vauge talk about server load or hypothetical browser problems.  I've moved it to the top of the list above and added a subsection above your comment to make it easier to link right to it when suggesting someone remove an image.  The actual item "They create a large number of "What links here" entries on the image page" could use a bit more punch, though. - brenneman {L}  23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File links 

message: I know this probably violates WP:BEANS, but I just noticed someone with a transcluded signature: . He got around it by having a forward slash instead of a backward slash in the subpage. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to stop (only about 40 instances are extant, thankfully), but this is clearly an exception to the "hardcoded" preventative measures on signature transclusion. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "forward" and "backward" slash?  I would call "/" a forward slash, but from context it seems to me that perhaps you are referring to "\" as a forward slash.  In any case, well spotted and thanks. --Tony Sidaway 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, and that's what he's got: The software is trained to catch User:Somebody\Sig and auto-subst: it, but his is User:Somebody/Sig, and it slipped through. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone reported this to bugzilla yet?  It's still happening.  violet/riga (t) 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't, no (no Bugzilla access from work, and I can't seem to find time in the evening). I don't see anything in the existing reports, either. Can you summarize it in a new report? I'll try to remember to get to it tonight if no one else does. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signature transclusion workaround