Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 2

message: I've seen at least one user who changed their signature to just point to a Wikipedia article, with no links to their talk page or their user page. This makes finding out their contributions, finding their talk page, and etc. a pain in the ass, and is clearly counterproductive. I've recommended to them that they change this, but it seems to me that something should be made explicit here that if you change your signature, at least one of the links in it should point to either your user page or your talk page, because otherwise 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". I think it's a pretty common sense requirement? Any objections? --Fastfission 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. I'd probably even go so far as to say that the signature must include a link somewhere to either the user's talk or user page, as those are the ones with Contribution histories. -- nae'blis 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional guideline?

message: has edit the project page to remove what he regarded as a superfluous pipe from Colour blindness.  Because color is spelled "colour" elsewhere in the page I have reverted this change.
 has performed the following change:
"Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia" -> "Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wiki."  The use of Wiki as a slang term for Wikipedia is both non-standard and misleading, so I've reverted that too. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed the spelling of "colour" that appeared only in this section to coincide with the spelling of "color" that was linked to in wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of two edits by [[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] and [[User:84.66.128.149|84.66.128.149]]

message: I found the instructions confusing, but I'm not confident I figured them out correctly, and so will rely on someone more familiar with the signature issues to revise this guideline page.  First, casual mention was made of how one template adds the (UTC) automatically; what's a UTC, and why would you want to do that?  
Second, the discussion of the templates (unsigned, unsignedPI, and unsigned2, all in wavy brackets) does not tell the hapless do-gooder that she or he will have to go look up the IP's and dates for all the unattributed remarks, and enter them manually.  So! If there's away to avoid the lookups, please, someone, elucidate that in the guideline.  And if there isn't, please clarify the manual steps as well.  I'd do it myself if only I knew what I was doing.  :)  -- Lisasmall 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions re unsigned talk posts 

message: When I registered, I assumed that the "signature" box was for text that would appear after or below my username.  That's the way it works on the bulletin boards I spend time on and they are the only kinds of places I've been involved in discussions online.  So, today, when I fianlly made a comment on a discussion page, I saw my entry signed with a timestamp and with my signature quote (quis custodiet ipsos custodes), rather than with my user name.  I tried to find guidance about what the signature box was for and only found this page.  Perhaps one of you old-timers know where to suggest that the registration process include a little more guidance to us newbies.
--Hjal 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place I can see to put such information that would help would be the preferences page itself.  There's already a little bit of help at the bottom of the page.  It would be nice to add a description of every configurable parameter, except that it would take more than the usual rights to do it, probably a developer, and it would then have to be maintained as people suggested improvements.   Regards, Ben Aveling 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature Instructions During Registration 

message: Your signature should not blink, or otherwise inconvenience or be annoying to other editors.
* Markup such as  tags (which produce big text), or line breaks ( tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays
* Be sparing with superscript or subscript.  In some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed
* Avoid making your signature so small that it is difficult to read
* In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with colour.  If you must use different colours in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with colour blindness.
This article needs much more about color-conflict issues, solutions, other solutions,...
Thank You.
hopiakuta ;  { [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ; ]] 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance and colour

message: There is a proposal by  about images in signatures. Please have a look there and have your say. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History repeats itself. ~MDD4696 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History strives to repeat itself, when man does not learn from his past mistakes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures in images 

message: Part of your signature seems to be broken, leaving wiki code and odd characters strewn about the talk pages. You might want to fix it. eaolson 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature {[[user : hopiakuta]]} 

message: I'd requested assistance.
Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.
Please?
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two weeks ago, 

message: can sum1 pleez tel me how 2 make my siggy a certain font? --User:Jesusfreek2 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  siggy 

message: I'd requested assistance.
Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.
Please?
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two weeks ago, 

message: I don't know if this the right place to ask this question but here goes.
My grandfather came from Lithuania, but I have no idea where. He came to America around early 1900's. From what I understand his family had some wealth and he was studying for the priest hood.
He left there for America because Russia was taking over their land and killing people. His Last name as we can find out was of this spelling (George Patalonas) I cannot find any trace of such name.
Any help well be greatly appreciated.
He was born around 1886 in Lithuania his wife was born 1887 Russian decent. Her name was (Victoria Andralunka) spelling may be of a little.
If this is the wrong place to ask can someone direct me to a place to search.
James Pataluna, (e-mail address removed)
:You could try Google. Unless your grandfather was well known, Wikipedia is not a good place to find what you are looking for. Sorry. ~MDD4696 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandfather's name 

message: Has anyone ever thought to do this (this might have been suggested already, but I'm rather in a hurry and don't have time to read):  Make a subpage under your userpage and have a signature there, then make your signature in your preferences be ?  That seems like it would not clog up the editing window and it wouldn't bother anyone.  Plus, it would change everywhere you've signed when you changed your signature, which would help clear up confusion.  Miltopia 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And would be a massive unnecessary drain on the servers, what with changing every single page you'd ever posted on every single time you changed your signature, and would be a gaping target for vandalism, allowing vandals to vandalise every single page you'd ever posted on. Transcluding signatures isn't even possible for these reasons - see  the guideline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Miltopia 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories, however, can be included. I just tested. Of course, it's among the worst ideas ever, but I don't think it's directly against the rules. --tjstrf talk 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I believe the photograph with Lester Pearson should also include in the Caption "Nobel Prize Winner"
Canking 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should raise this on Talk:Lester B. Pearson, or alternatively be bold and change it yourself. This page is for discussing the 'sign your posts' guideline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: After discussion from the Village Pump, one of the things that has come out of that discussion is that people are customising their signatures with messages. Many of these are biased and fail WP:NPOV. These messages can look like they are part of a discussion.
As an example I made up: Vote delete for this article - JohnSmithtalk • contribs 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WP:NPOV can apply the non-articles, but I agree that political type message shouldn't be included in sigs. ---J.S  (T/C) 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More and more messages being included in signatures 

message: In the "dealing with unsigned comments," section, I recommended that people notify users, especially new users, that they should sign their comments. It's pretty much common sense, I thought. Robocracy 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notify users to sign their comments 

message: I briefly looked at this page to figure out how to sign a post, and in my brief glance, it didn't seem that just using the four tildes was enough to get your entire signature down.  So instead of just using four tildes, I used four tildes followed by my username.  
In my haste, I didn't realize that signing as someone else would obviously invalidate the whole point of signing.  If you used 'SampleUser' in the place of 'Example' for the username it'd be much clearer to people who are just trying to quickly get the gist of signing. Keenman76 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I made the change. Hows it look now? ---J.S  (T/C) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that looks much better now.  Thanks very much for making the change. Keenman76 06:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop using 'Example' as example 

message: I've encountered this a couple of times, and it's annoying. Not signatures that show a clear abbreviation of the username, but those that show an entirely different name. It makes it difficult, for example, to compare edit histories with the content of talk pages, or to determine who a user is in some text-based browsers. I would like to suggest that "Correct username must appear in signature" or similar become part of the guideline.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the view of this as an issue.  Much like the do not impersonate other usernames rule, this is considerably similar with the difference that the infraction can be dealt with slightly less harsh than the initial immediate blocks given to username violaters (maybe inacting more serious measures when the user refuses to change it as mentioned above).  I'm not so sure about those who sign real names or pen names in replacement of their usernames however.  If the real name/pen name in use is considerably confusing/misleading (such as signing the names of famous people, linking sigs to irrelavant pages rather than user/talk pages, etc.); then it does have cause of action for a minor to more serious warning depending on the situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I strengthened the phrasing a couple of days ago, but please write more if you see any need for it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I do not like it when other users hide their username with something so different from their username. But I have dropped the .M.S out of my sig is this okay? — Seadog (Talk) 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I believe it is Seadog.  The underlying problem is not subtlely different signatures but those which are drastically different than the username or misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with Persian Poet—nobody will be confused between Seadog and Seadog.M.S —Doug Bell talk 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point fingers, but an example would be Pmanderson. Look at his talk page, you'll see a user called "Septentrionalis" among the contributors. You would never guess that that is Pmanderson himself, and you would have no way of knowing that it is unless you go through and check what links to every single signature or examine the page source code. Search for the username in a normal browser window and you won't find anything. This is why this sort of thing is quite unhelpful.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I posted this as an example before this user's RFA, during which the signature became an issue for some users; this user has now modified it somewhat to address these concerns. This comment was not intended to influence that vote. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user.
—Doug Bell talk 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I've been impersonated before (a troll using the name "Prohibit0nions" with a zero) so I certainly agree that making clear this applies to signatures as well is a very good idea.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signatures that display an entirely different name than the username

message: Another issue I've come across is User:DarknessLord, who stores his signature at User:DarknessLord/Sig. He has a redirect page at Template:Dlord, and thus sometimes signs with . This is nonstandard, and an inappropriate use of template space (the redirect page is not in userspace). However, the guideline refers to templates only obliquely and does not mention non-tilde signatures such as this. Is this enough of an issue to say something about it in the guideline?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need policy as this use of templates is already disallowed elsewhere, but put the  template up for deletion at WP:TfD. —Doug Bell talk 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same, but someone's already speedied it. Problem solved.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that after leaving a comment on his talk page. —Doug Bell talk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you did. Good job.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I always thought Dlords sig was too long. Just click the edit this page button and you will notice that it takes a fourth of the edit screen up. — Seadog (Talk) 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's a lot of code. Doug did warn him, though; perhaps he'll take heed and change it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud Doug for doing so also. — Seadog 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of a template for signature

message: Hey all. I've changed my long coded background colored hideous sig to the absolute minimum (details here). That's probably temporary, since I'm in a minimalistic mood lately.
However, I strongly disagree with this latest fad for shortening codes, making sigs not stick out in the text, etc etc. My view is that the term "signature" has strong personal connotations and is one of the most powerful tools (both literally, and why not also in WP) of expressing one's self. Your signature reflects you. I think this whole thing should be largely left to users to decide for themselves (within reason), just like we decide how we'll sign e.g. our tax-form. If people are offended by long and colored sigs, then IMHO they are wrong in principle, since they are violating other people's right to self-expression and self-identification.
Why shouldn't one's sig stick out in the talks? I find it quite useful to locate mine and other people's comments in lengthy debates.
Regarding the edit-window code-clutter argument, I sympathize, but I think there are many ways to get around that (e.g. hit enter between comments for Christ's sake!). In extreme cases (e.g. bulleted intermingled responses), as a courtesy to the other responders, I myself (and others I know) have used short initials (e.g. --NS) and have signed normally below the bulletted text.(e.g. here) This would be a nice suggestion to include in the project page.
So, in short, have users decide how their sig will look like. Have them judge the color and other features as they feel. Just specify some absolute rules for code length (my opinion is <300 chars) and color-blind issues (with a concrete color chart). Then let people express themselves freely, and identify themselves as they wish. NikoSilver 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is first and foremost a free encyclopedia. Unless WP:SIG states that: long coded background colored hideous sig is people's right to self-expression and self-identification (and I don't see any consensus for this); then they are for a reason frowned upon. feydey 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, my signature looks like ais523, but most of you won't see it look that way at the end of this comment; it's perfectly possible to create a user-script that responds to signatures. Individuality in signatures is a good thing, though (if you look closely you'll notice that my sig isn't the default, and not just due to the lowercase a at the start), as long as it doesn't clog up the edit screen or violate policies. --ais523 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That UTC thing is clever, ais523! I've run into you so often on talkpages, and I never even noticed that.  (signed out) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Feydey: Encyclopedias are written and read by people. Now the part that is read doesn't have any sigs. But the people who write might just want to feel a little more than robots. You can't just crush someone's personality by altering their signature (of all things!). I seriously doubt there is a consensus here consisting of a wide representation of WP. To prove what I mean, just count the colored/tweaked/different sigs in -say- WP:RfA. NikoSilver 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with your sig, and I fail to see the point of the above statement. Basically try to stay in line with the guidelines, remember of all things we are trying to collaboratively try to create an encyclopedia. — Seadog 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a personal complaint (although could be, please start reading from the beginning of this section). Also, you might just want to feel human to "create an encyclopedia". PS. I like your sig. NikoSilver 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgrounds etc