Hey, is there a rule against emojis in your signature? Asking for a friend.--🐦 05:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It is acceptable to use unicode characters, including emojis, in signatures - see Redrose64's signature in the sections above - but you should also include text that makes it clear who you are. For example, 🐦 is insufficient, but DoctorWho42🐦 or DW🐦42 would be just fine. —DoRD (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
To be exact, I don't use the character "🌹" directly, instead I use the numeric character reference🌹 so that people whose browsers won't display that character can at least view the page source to see what it is, and thus perhaps look it up at e.g. FileFormat.info. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Should we maybe amend the article?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. The pros and cons of using the emoji directly vs. entering the numeric reference is particularly worthy of discussion. I feel like having the emoji appear in the wiki markup may be quite helpful in quickly navigating unformatted code when editing a long talk page, but I do wonder if more veteran editors would find it jarring. —jameslucas (" " / +) 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Would emojis merit a section or at least a subsection? I understand "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind:" deals with "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users." but does not explicitly reference them. For example, User:Boomer Vial was kind enough to point out that my original signature "☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦" (the colors were a reference to Pantone's Color of the Year) may appear confusing to new editors so I decided to eschew the original signature besides enlist the advice of this talk page.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any rule or guideline stating that a user's signature timestamp should be correct? I've highlighted to an edit that their timestamps are out by several hours, but they don't show any interest in fixing this, and in my view there is the possibility that it will cause confusion. I'd like to be able to point them at something official before raising this with them again. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Signature timestamps that are out by one minute (earlier than the time recorded in page history) aren't uncommon, the reality is that they differ by one second or less - for instance the tildes might be expanded at e.g. 11:59:59.99 and the edit saved at 12:00:00.01 which is a difference of 20 milliseconds.
Then there are the people who have installed a gadget or other script which reformats timestamps, such as "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation)". I have been in discussion with at least one user who had enabled this gadget and disagreed with me upon the time that my edits were made. Another two with this gadget even went around altering the timestamps on other people's posts as they were editing, saved these changes (contrary to WP:TPO) and weren't even aware that they had done so - and when I asked them why, they angrily denied that they had done anything. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Responded on their talk page. ~ GB fan 13:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Making user talk page appear inactive in signature?
I don't want to out this editor at this time, but they've changed the coloring on the word "talk" in their signature to be the same, or nearly the same, as it would be if their talk page did not exist. While I think this is bad form, I'm not sure whether it rises to a level at which they should be talked with about it, and I've had a contentious enough relationship with this editor that I'm not sure my broaching the subject would go over well. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean with inactive? You mean a redlink? Well, many editors have red linked talk pages, it just means no one has left a message yet. How is that disruptive? Regards SoWhy 14:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Their talk page is not inactive, they've just colored the "talk" in their signature (perhaps inadvertently) utilizing the same color. In other words it's a faux redlink. I didn't say it was disruptive, but I do think it's potentially misleading. Hence my posting here to ask editors who may know more about the subject than I do whether it is a point of concern. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I know the case. I think it was discussed briefly somewhere and the view was that it was a bit disconcerting but ok. Some far worse signatures can be seen in the wild. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought this guideline required a visible name in a signature, but all I can find concerns size/color/font etc. There is a requirement for a link to the user page or user talk page or contributions. Is the following compliant with the guideline?
It's not a big deal, but I find it irritating that a guideline does not contain clear guidance about what I would have thought was an obvious point. I suppose the fact that people show nicknames instead of their user name, and sometimes icon characters, means that a visible name is not needed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Having just one link - to a talk page in this case - is fine. But
A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.
would be OK for the signature, but not for the timestamp. Some scripts and bots won't recognise it either because a comma is missing after the time, or because the day is an ordinal. The lack of a time zone is also an issue for one of the archiving bots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but I can't really complain about the section at the bottom of Talk:Acupuncture if the guideline does not spell that out. Absolutely the only good thing that could be said about Flow is that it would stop all the nonsense with signatures (because there aren't any)! Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)