Wikipedia talk:Signatures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
          A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page. Click [show] to view it.

Update needed[edit]

The guidelines state: the signature icon: or ...

This needs to be updated to show the correct icon that currently appears above the edit window. -- -- -- 02:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "the correct icon"? Users who are not logged in (and those who have not altered certain user prefs) are shown Insert-signature.png, or something very like it. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The icon I am shown is quite different (I didn't altered any prefs pertaining to the signature icon). -- -- -- 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of altering anything pertaining to just signatures, it's a matter of using a different toolbar altogether. That said, Signature ~~~~ (shift-click: name only ~~~) could probably be added since it is what the icon looks like for those using wikEd. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2014[edit]

I have read your write up and the poem In Flanders Fields. Beside the poem there is a copy (I assume) of the original poem. If I read correctly it should read "In Flanders Fields the poppies "GROW". Please check this. (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Signatures. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we replace/remove the unsigned notice to fix the signature?[edit]

When we forget to sign, it adds "Preceding unsigned comment added by". Are we allowed to remove this and fix this signature, providing we keep the original timestamp or something? If so, will the SineBot auto-sign the new edit too? Zeniff (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit your own comment (although it's best to not change it once others have responded), and people often simply replace the entire "unsigned" message with four tildes to create a proper signature. You don't have to worry about the original timestamp. It is useful to get in the habit of previewing each comment before posting, including checking the signature at the end. No, Sinebot will not re-sign after a valid signature. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that you can leave the date added by SineBot and just sign with three tildes instead of four. This generates your normal signature but does not append a new date. This can be helpful to avoid confusion about the order of who said what, when, if you happen to come back to (re-)sign your post after others have posted replies. It can also make it easier for other editors to find original comment diffs in the page history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! Very helpful replies! Thank you both very much! :) Zeniff (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"New section" in signature[edit]

Didn't see anything in the guideline about this so wanted to run it past the page. Are there any restrictions on links to create "new sections" on a user's talk page directly from their signature? (E.g., "czar ") czar  05:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The purpose of a link to your user page or your user talk page is to allow people to see it. For example, if someone wondered if you had been notified about something, they should have a quick look before adding a new section. Also, many editors would not want to click a link in a signature and find that they were half-way through an action. Also, that would be confusing for new users. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The idea would be to put anything worth reading in the page notice. But point taken czar  07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It certainly shouldn't be surprising, as it is in your example. If I click on something like "leave a message", I don't mind ending up in a "new section" edit window. If I click on "♔", I expect a page about crowns, and certainly not an edit window. If you must have an "edit" link in your signature, you should also have a direct link to the page itself. —Kusma (t·c) 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with requiring userpage links[edit]

I have reverted the last edit. It is discussed here. Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Reverted it on the basis of what? People shouldn't be warned that failure to have a link to their userpage that isn't prefixed with a colon will break the effects that require them to work? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Discussed there, I have raised my argument there already. Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the Inuit population?[edit]

I have only a brief comment: The article on Baffin Island has what I regard to be a stunning omission: the complete absence of any reference to, or discussion of, the native Inuit populations that have inhabited the island for centuries. Only Euro-centric viewpoints seem to matter. Astonishing!

This is a talk page about Wikipedia's signature policy. Please leave your comments about improving Baffin Island at Talk:Baffin Island. Thank you! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Automatically sign talk posts[edit]

(Renamed from "Allow super-opt-in to SineBot")

Please allow users to affirmatively opt in to having SineBot automatically sign talk posts for us without calling us out for not having signed the post. If it's something that always needs to be done on talk pages, why not automate it? It's more user-friendly.

I've posted a complementary request at the bot author's talk page but they might require consensus here that it's a good idea.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd oppose this. It's needless extra editing by the bot tying up resources (regardless of how many or few). It's not that hard to type ~~~~ or click on the inject link in the bottom to add it at the end of your posts. FLOW will do this automatically, but there is no reason we should do this now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't it built in to Wikipedia to automatically sign? No, it is not hard to actually type the four tildes, but if I haven't posted in a while or I'm focused on my response, it's hard to remember. Call it a disability if you like. Doesn't have to be done by the bot, but Wikipedia is a computer program and can be programmed to autosign, so why isn't it? When I make forum posts to various bulletin boards, they all automatically add my name and the date. I don't understand why it needs to be a manual process on Wikipedia. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing the talk system to forum software is being proposed, see WP:Flow. Meanwhile, please preview all edits, including comments, and check they are what is intended, including a signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Spend some time on more talk pages in more areas, particularly very active ones. They're considerably more dynamic and non-linear/non-forum-like than you likely imagine or have experienced thus far, which creates unique issues when it comes to treating them like forums when they're used to being used as general-collaboration spaces. --slakrtalk / 05:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, most forums aren't encyclopedias or wikis; their goal is to facilitate the interpersonal discussion of personal opinions on topics. That's not the case here; we try to facilitate the creation and maintenance of a product, not facilitate discussion of people's opinions of the topic. In that vein, it's likely more important that our talk pages be more free-form (to facilitate content building, review, and maintenance) than restricted-in-format (to facilitate discussion of opinions). --slakrtalk / 05:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This question comes up from time to time, on this and other discussion pages, see for example Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 9#Automated signatures. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIGAPP bullet 2[edit]

There is a discussion at An entire parameter for sections? in which Codename Lisa and I seem to disagree. It is her position that WP:SIGAPP bullet 2 doesn't apply in cases where the user is consciously inserting a line break where common sense does not bar or requires. It is my position that bullet 2 says it is not permitted; not in preferences, not in a substituted template, and not if added manually. I believe that saying that it is okay to add it manually is an attempt to GAME the system, but I would like to hear from the community as to what their views on this are. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIGAPP is concerned with how the final signature is rendered. One should not sign with a linebreak because it may disrupt surrounding text. Wether that linebreak is inserted automatically or manually makes no difference. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't sign with a line break. Link break is outside the signature. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
These are the diff in which I told you what exactly is my sig. and therefore the line break is not inside it. Either show me a policy that says the use of <br /> is entirely not allowed in the same edit that contains ~~~~ or else I don't see any reason to dignify this discussion with a response.
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please try harder to not worry about things that don't matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow text[edit]

"For guidance on how to use color and other effects to customize the appearance of your signature, see this tutorial."
The mentioned tutorial uses yellow text on white background as an example. This is nearly unreadable. Is this a good example (or good implied guidance or suggestion) for new users or others that happens to find this signature advice page?
The mentioned tutorial uses yellow text on white background as an example. This is nearly unreadable. Is this a good example (or good implied guidance or suggestion) for new users or others that happens to find this signature advice page? Iceblock (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed [1] NE Ent 11:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)