Wikipedia talk:Signatures

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Signatures page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia or other random questions.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Signatures page itself, and Wikipedia's signature guidelines.
  • To ask questions about how to use Wikipedia, see the Help desk.
  • To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk.
Shortcut:
WT:SIG
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Guideline Review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. GtstrickyTalk or C 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. Shereth 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. GtstrickyTalk or C 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!
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... -- 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? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unlinked signatures

subhead added and thread split/refactored by -- Quiddity (talk) at 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A tangential example: I asked admin Docu just a few days ago, to include a link in his/her signature, but was gently rebuffed. -- 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. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline review (2)

subhead added by User:Docu at 06:12, 2008 September 18 (UTC)

A somewhat recent change was made following a brief discussion: 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 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

That "somewhat recent" (sic) change was made in July 2007 (your undated comment was posted on 10 September 2008); and your recent edit to provide an exclusion to it was quickly reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a pointer, the 3rd link discussing linkless signatures is at Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#No links in a signature. As admin John Reaves says there, "Not including a link is borderline disruption." -- Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That comment was made after the change and besides, your quote doesn't give any explanation. -- User:Docu

[edit] Docu's unlinked, undated signature

subhead added by -- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have (re)refactored the original discussion, to split apart the two separate topics. This was initially a potentially productive thread about "guideline review", that I hope doesn't get derailed by a discussion about linkless signatures.
I'm happy to see you have added a link to yours; hopefully you will also add a timestamp, to help make threads easier to follow for all fellow-editors, and to aid archival bots that rely upon timestamps. Perhaps you could explain why you are so reticent to use them, despite all the requests? (I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better (clearer, more consistent); not to get into an argument) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My post was in regards to guideline review. If you like to discuss timestamps, you could open a new topic. Besides, would like to add anything in response to my question? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([1])
None of your previous comments in this thread included a question mark. Which part was a question? I'll guess, and answer what I think you are talking about...
Yes, the comment was made after the change; I never claimed otherwise - I said it was a 3rd thread discussing linkless signatures, which it is.
The quote doesn't need any explanation. It is self-explanatory: If you have a signature without a link, you are (borderline) causing a purposeful disruption. (it is disruptive as explained to you in the threads linked below)
  1. Will you answer the 2 admins and 2 editors ([2] and [3]) who have asked you why you are reluctant to include a link to your user/talkpage, and why you still don't include a timestamp?
  2. Why you are being so defensive about this (even changing the guideline to get around it), instead of just explaining your position against links/timestamps??
If we understand your position, we might be able to sympathize or even help. Please! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If you check the page, you can read that the quote from John Reaves is in response to somewhat complicated explanation given by Alex_Smotrov which hightlights problematic signatures without links: "some users also changed their nickname with every post (cause "hey, that's allowed as well")". Any of the above explanations highlight a clear problem, i.e. signatures unrelated to user names presented in a way that they don't allow to identify clearly the users. Do we agree on this point? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([4])
Your use of a signature without a link to your user and/ or talk page, and without a date-time stamp, causes problems and extra work for me; and apparently clearly does so for other editors too. Do you dispute this point? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the extra work you got? -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([5])
Why do you respond to questions with questions, and not answers? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I agree or I disagree with you if I don't bother explaining what extra work I caused you. (You did write above "Your use of a signature without a link .. causes .. extra work for me"). -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([6])
I've raised this issue here. Adambro (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Docu: I did indeed say that. Please assume that I do so in good faith; and address the problem. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be glad to address your problem. You would help us, if you'd explain the extra work you had. If you are not interested in guideline review, you should just leave me a note on my talk page (it's here BTW). -- User:Docu Comment withdrawn by Docu following header change by Pigsonthewing ([7])
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] 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)

I'm not sure how easy it would be to fool such a scanner, but I think it might be worth doing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

I have reverted a change to this guideline page which put a policy banner at the top of the linking section. I can see that there is a wide agreement that people should link to their user or user talk pages in their signatures, and that it is a good practice. But what I'm not seeing - here or on AN/I - is an agreement that it should actually be considered a hard-and-fast policy of Wikipedia. What I instead see is several people on ANI going "meh" and questioning why something so minor needs to be dragged to ANI. Which in my opinion says "this is not an important enough issue to warrant strict enforcement along with Wikipedia's other policies". Discuss. - Mark 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that had the user in question been newer, i.e. not "grandfathered' in, people would have been more disapproving. John Reaves 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and I believe making that policy (again, given that it is so widely followed) will avoid debates about this in the future. Probably a form of instruction creep, but I don't imagine this is the last time we'll deal with a situation like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisited

The policy statements concerning this are widely spread throughout this and other pages. There is no practical point to marking one section as policy; the other sections (templates, categories...) are equally vital; as guideline material or whatever. --NewbyG (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the current formulation of this guideline is that it the formulation exceeds the objectives for which it was written. Unfortunately the discussion of this further up in this thread got sidetracked. -- User:Docu
If you think you can get consensus for the rest to be policy/guideline, by all means. But I think it's obvious that, at least as far as internal links are concerned for user or user talk pages, there's wide support for this (people both follow this and seem to expect it). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in this page should be construed as anything more than guideline. If there has been some actual discussion regarding making this page or any section of it into enforceable policy -- please link to it here. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So the fact that this is the widely accepted norm doesn't hold any weight for you, whatsoever? How many users does this change affect and how is it not supported by the actions of the community at large? Widespread support through actions, not words, is as good as any discussion we might have. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Being a widely accepted norm does not make this a policy. It does make it a behavioral guideline. I do not understand your second question. What change are you referring to that might have any effect whatsoever on any users? I'm not aware that there is any widespread support for this being elevated to policy, which would imply that not following it might result in sanctions of some sort. Are you saying that there is some explicit widespread consensus that editors who do not observe the prescriptions of this page or section should be subject to sanctions? older ≠ wiser 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines— "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow." Note that a policy need not be discussed and acquire consensus to be created, and that's the mistake I think you're making. Not everything needs to be discussed in a committee or voted on, especially when we have clear consensus by action that this is what the community expects. As for the issue at hand, it's clear that people consider it disturbing (perhaps rising to the level of being disruptive), so yes, I believe it's safe to say the community would expect sanctions on those who refuse to comply. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You're excerpting selectively. The very next sentence states: They [policies] are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. There is no clear connection between this page and the five pillars. The entire nature of this page is advisory in nature (i.e., guideline). There are some people who think a lot of things are disruptive that are not necessarily policy. Just because some people don't like something is not a very good basis for establishing policy. Where is the evidence for your claim that the community would expect sanctions on those who refuse to comply? Your claim that a policy need not be discussed and acquire consensus to be created is patently false. Please show me a policy that has been accepted without discussion? older ≠ wiser 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timestamps

At Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links, it says that either the user page or the user talk page must be linked in the signature of a user, which makes sense to me. What I couldn't find, tho, was a requirement to include a timestamp in one's signature. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the guideline, too? --Conti|✉ 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I think the timestamp isn't part of the signature; ~~~~ adds a signature with a timestamp following it. (In some cases, I think people are asked to sign a list without timestamps.) The de-facto requirement (which I'm not sure I've seen written down anywhere) is to sign and date comments, though, rather than just signing them. --ais523 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) appears in just about every talk page. Sign and date is recommended at Wikipedia:Etiquette and other places. Making undated comments on a talk page is confusing and unhelpful in most cases. /NewbyG (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It may be worth specifying contexts in which it's worth dating and signing comments. -- User:Docu
I'd say you should sign and date a comment when you make a comment? --Conti|✉ 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
See this discussion at Template talk:Undated --NewbyG (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
To answer Docu's suggestion: Comments should always be dated, unless otherwise specified (e.g. in wikiproject membership lists). I'd suggest adding that to the guideline, if it's not already implicit/obvious. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo