Wikipedia talk:Signatures

This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia or other random questions.

Include signature in template

WHY DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA IF THEY GET THE WEBSITE FREE? ARE WE DONATING TO PAY SOMEONE TO RUN THE FREE THING? IF THAT IS SO IM OK, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, ITS A GREAT FREE SITE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.237.109 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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.