Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Signatures: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by Itisbox (talk) to last version by Docu
Itisbox (talk | contribs)
Line 73: Line 73:
:Too much colour is more likely to be distraction... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:Too much colour is more likely to be distraction... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Recently Could Accept Visa/AMEX/DinersClub Credit Cards.
== Guideline Review ==


10/9 11 New DVDs-Dekker the Trucker/Taken/Female Agents/Apocalypse Code/Go West: A Lucky Luke Adventure
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. <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 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. [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 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. <b>[[User:Gtstricky|<font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">'''''Gtstricky'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gtstricky|Talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Gtstricky|C]]</sup></b> 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!
:::A tangential example: I [[User_talk:Docu#Signature|asked admin Docu]] just a few days ago, to include a link in his/her signature, but was gently rebuffed.
:::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... -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk: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? -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Good Chemistry/Good Chemistry/Bigga Than Ben/Gaping Abyss/Ballet Shoes/Asterix
A somewhat recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Signatures&diff=next&oldid=144681058 change] was made following a brief discussion: [[Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_5#Recourses|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 [[Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_3#Underwrought signatures? (i.e., Linkless)|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]]

08/9 7 New DVDs-The Dark Knight/Ca$h/Death Race/Get Smart/Meet Dave/I'm Not There/Coeurs/Shockwave

05/9 5 New DVDs-Foreign Exchange/Lone Rider/White Tuft, the Little Beaver/Elegy/Kabluey

Click here to see the new products


== Replacing IP with signature ==
== Replacing IP with signature ==

Revision as of 09:25, 11 September 2008

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The second point doesn't apply, since archiving will still archive my sig. --fone4me 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try the point where the system administrators said to worry about the performance drain. Anomie 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Recently Could Accept Visa/AMEX/DinersClub Credit Cards.

10/9 11 New DVDs-Dekker the Trucker/Taken/Female Agents/Apocalypse Code/Go West: A Lucky Luke Adventure

                          Good Chemistry/Good Chemistry/Bigga Than Ben/Gaping Abyss/Ballet Shoes/Asterix

08/9 7 New DVDs-The Dark Knight/Ca$h/Death Race/Get Smart/Meet Dave/I'm Not There/Coeurs/Shockwave

05/9 5 New DVDs-Foreign Exchange/Lone Rider/White Tuft, the Little Beaver/Elegy/Kabluey

Click here to see the new products

Replacing IP with signature

This was reported in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25/In the news. Do we want to add it here?

Occasionally, an editor will be logged out without recognizing it and post to a discussion, thus their IP shows as their signature. After the editor realizes this, they may log in and replace the signature. This may not be a good thing, as WikiScanner now trawls the database looking for these replacements and logs them at Poor Man's Checkuser. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]