Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 10

Nicknames in signatures.
I recently ran across this user and will use him as an example. User:Apokryltaros, with this signature "--Mr Fink (talk)", which violates my reading of SIGPROB but not Signatures. Could we clarify. I find this use of signatures very confusing, because in edit histories you see "Apokryltaros" but on talk pages all you see is "Mr Fink". CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done absolutely nothing wrong with my signature, CombatWombat. If it is not your intent to try and get me blocked at Wikipedia for some trumped up fake charges because I've somehow offended you for refusing to jump through hoops to make you feel better, then please stop harassing me.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In this thread, CombatWombat seems to be asking for clarification on the guidelines which seem to disagree with each other. Your dispute with CombatWombat is not the issue here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * CombatWombat has been bothering me about my signature, and I do not appreciate his further harassing me by using me as an example in this thread. If our dispute is not the issue here, then why did he have a dispute with me in the first place, then drag it over here to be used as an example? --Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apokryltaros, you are allowed to beleive whatever you want, but I truly am trying to get clarification on two confliciting guidelines, not trying to harass you. You are the first user I have noticed that fails one but not the other so I thought you were the best example. You will noticed I have simply asked as a nicety for you to change and posted my thoughts as to what guidelines (I may have incorrectly refered to them as policies, my apologies), I thought you were violating. I do apologise that you perceve that as harrasment. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * SIGPROB says that nicknames in signatures "can be confusing for editors" (emphasis mine). It does not prohibit such signatures. Given that in this case a proper link to the user page is present, and simply hovering over the link displays the actual username, i don't see a problem here. Are you confused? Has anyone said that he or she is confused? Perhaps the wording of SIGPROB reeds to be revised or clarified to avpoid the appearence of conflict. DES (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the matter of that, my signature is technically a nickname, but few if any seem to ahve been confused by it over the years. DES (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CombatWombat, I already gave you my justifications for why I have my signature the way I do, and you told me that you didn't care, that I should still do what you've told me to do. As far as I can tell, you're trying to bully me via committee into changing my signature to please you.  If you're really sincere about apologizing, you'd leave me alone, rather than use me as an example in your thread here.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are not being required to change your username or your sig. No one that I have seen has said that you have to. No one but even seems to think that you ought to, and that editor cannot enforce such a request. Please let this matter drop.
 * , feel free to use my sig as an example if you need one in discussing the matter further. However, I don't really think much further discussion of the abstract point is needed. DES (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DES, the problem with your sig vs username is that your sig is a shortening, not a complete changing of, your username so it dosn't work as an example. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, CombatWombat, if you really are sincere about not harassing or bullying me, then desist from using my signature as an example in this thread, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Find me another example of a real user who has this much of a difference in their sig and username and I would be more than happy to. Using a fake example changes how people percive the problem. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And continuing to use me as an example in this thread only confirms that you're trying to continue harassing and bullying me into changing my signature for your own sake.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicknames in signatures are fine. They've always been accepted.  It's no more confusing than people having their nickname as a username but signing with their real name.  If you find it especially difficult to make sense of this, then try WP:NAVPOPS and see whether that helps you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree I find the difference very confusing, but more to the point, do the two guidelines not contradict in this case? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They drive me nuts too, but we can't enforce them and I live in comfort knowing that before too much longer when WP:FLOW rolls out and custom signatures will be eliminated all together. But, as for your request so you will leave them alone about it, signs as "-- 레비   Revi  con",  signs as " Fiddle   Faddle ",  signs as "-- ᛒᚨᛊᛖ  ( ᛏᚨᛚᚲ )", and I know of at least a dozen others that do it. All you can do is drop a request on their talk page "asking" them nicely to stop doing it because it is confusing and the relevant policy that sums up why it is confusing to you is WP:SIGPROB (at least that is why it bothers me, you may have another section that more accurately describes it). Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Other ways of pissing decent Wikipedians off are to include them in threads like this where the amount of hot air expelled is inversely proportional to the benefit of expelling it. Gotta love irony. Fiddle   Faddle  23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, given the announced limitations of Phase 1 Flow, I expect massive resistance if an attempt is made to roll it out anywhere on en.wikipedia, and even the development team doesn't claim that Phase 1 would be suitable for project talk pages such as this. I will be very surprised if we see it implemented withing the next four years. DES (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I say I live in comfort knowing that before too much longer when WP:FLOW rolls out and custom signatures will be eliminated all together and you ping me to say this? I thought we were colleagues in the development of an encyclopedia... :p Kick a man and ask him if it hurts... I see how you are... ;) Technical 13 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, it's just my opinion. But the history of the reception of VE is not promising for the advocates of Flow, IMO. Flow, or something like it will probably come eventually, but I think several more iterations of development will be needed before it satisfies vital use cases, and then (and only then) considerable time and effort to get community acceptance. But who knows. (And yes I see the :) and am not offended in any way.) DES (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Flow is being threatened sooner (in five days time) rather than later at some WikiProjects. See for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire and all bar one of the subsequent threads. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we get back to CombatWombat's question instead of turning this into Yet Another Flow Discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But what about when the nickname is a match for a pre-existing username? Let's say someone's actual user name is User:Macaroni but they've edited their signature to say their name is Hero (talk). When there is no account actually named Username:Hero then I don't see any unsurmountable confusion or need to disambiguate. But what if there was a pre-existing editor named Username:Hero, would it still be okay? (I'm assuming it would be considered inappropriate for someone else to change their sig to read "Guy Macon" or "Fiddle Faddle", but what happens if they do? ) Or what if someone creates an primary account using the same name as the nickname signature in the near future? __ E L A Q U E A T E   12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is an editor named Hero, at the Hungarian Wikipedia in 2010. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume this is an attempt to gain consensus about the warning you posted to my talk page? PLEASE AGF next time prior to accusing me of impersonating User:Mike. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF yourself. I never accused you of impersonating anyone. I made an abstract example covering more than your actions because I was curious about more than your situation. Your actions, where you started used the signature "Mike" when there's another long-time user named "Mike", were much less nuanced than the example I was asking about here. I clearly stated and meant that I assumed you weren't using it for reasons of impersonation but that it could look that way to other editors, which is also what the guideline advises. And there's already consensus regarding WP:SIGFORGE or it wouldn't currently be in the guideline, so there's nothing I need to gain anyway. And why tell me to AGF in the same comment you explicitly state you're not assuming good faith? __ E L A Q U E A T E  23:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but when you highlight something in another colour you are trying to push a point:"Never use another editor's signature. Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden. Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation."Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I marked it as example text (xt) because it was a direct quote from the guideline and I didn't want it to be taken as my own phrasing. I use it all of the time. My own words were: I'm assuming that you're not doing it to obscure your actual username in general conversation or to associate yourself with Mike's contributions here, but others might not notice that your actual username is so different from your signature, and that you're not the long-term editor whose username you're using. Regardless of your intent, it certainly could give the appearance of impersonating another user as you have it now. That's not an accusation that you are doing with any intent at all. Further relevant text quoted from the guideline: If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. A look at your signature in action gives no immediate indication to any non-familiar editor that you're not Mike, as a conversation with him would look identical. I think there was clear potential for confusion and notified you, and I never accused you of anything. __ E L A Q U E A T E  23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is a little bit more to it than just the case of confusions on pages where both [User:A|B] and [User:B] discuss. Rather, I have been vaguely aware of Mrfrobinson's signature for some time, as other users have tried to get his attention by making a link to what turned out to be my user page, giving me the notification instead. I believe (most of) those mistakes have been identified and corrected, though... It has not been too often, so I haven't been bothered by it. So I guess this is mostly my way of saying "Hi! As the unwitting third party of this issue, yes, I am aware of it." :p Mike (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See  http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=Mrfrobinson&user2=Mike  for a list of pages where confusion between the two is at least remotely possible. This looks like a plot worthy of Professor Chaos (see Image:Professorchaos2009.jpg). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As Mike says, the confusion isn't really from the rare pages where editors interact on the same page. The greater issue is where one editor is making edits on a visible and contentious page or makes some breach of ethics, and the uninvolved editor is confused with it later. It wouldn't take much. As a theoretical example, if some fraudulent Guy Macon was banned as a spamming COI-loving sockpuppet-master, you might not even hear about it right away, but editors might associate you with their bad behavior. And I don't know how likely any individual example of it would be, but I thought the guideline was useful just to reduce the likelihood of some kind of preventable mix-up in the future between an editor who's quietly and uncontroversially been around for years and another editor that has become more active. This case isn't that important, and I suppose the above is mockery for having cared about a situation that might never develop, but that's fine. __ E L A Q U E A T E  02:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except for one fact: no noticeboard or dispute resolution forum anywhere on Wikipedia will accept a complaint against a user without diffs showing the exact edits where he supposedly misbehaved. And diffs show usernames, not nicknames. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the actual sanctions being accidentally given to the wrong user or anything like that, i was talking about general post-scandal confusion about which editor had issues or not. A theoretical example is if "User:Macaroni|Hero" did something truly vile or objectionable, was banned and sent packing, then a couple of months later a lot of editors might not remember that it wasn't "User:Hero|Hero" but would still remember a talk page with a lot of "Hero" comments. If people spent time with a minimal amount of digging, the real story is always available in the logs and diffs, but I think the signature guideline also removes ambiguity in those situations where people wouldn't be expected to be looking at the old diffs. Even if the bad outcome is uncommon, and all of the editors involved are equally responsible and respected, I haven't seen any argument that multiple users using identical signatures wouldn't cause avoidable confusion down the line. If someone else started signing their posts Guy Macon, it would still be something worth taking a look at, even if that editor was an angel and only edited a topic (pick one at random; Teddy Bears, Women's shoes, Generic territorial dispute) you didn't care about and were never likely to be involved with.__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I just thought of another example. What if "User:Macaroni" started signing his posts "User:Macaroni|Qworty"? I think using the signature of another editor would still be an issue for people even if Macaroni was a saint otherwise and it could be considered disruptive both to people who immediately twigged that it wasn't the banned editor and those who didn't. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow that is a very extensive list! It is interesting that elaqueate references a page where I (along with another editor) made a redirect for a duplicate article that was not received well by another editor. Regardless I removed my signature and asked for a rename. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and take shots and make innuendos if it makes you feel better, but I made no accusations of you at all, I didn't mention you on this page before you rolled in accusing me of whatever, and I only linked to the last edit you made before changing your signature to show what it looked like before you changed it. But the fact that editors sometimes make accusations of fellow editors unburdened by proof just confirms the value of a guideline designed to keep people from being confused with editors that might make make contentious edits at some point. If the next person you take shots at isn't as charmed by your assumptions of bad faith as I am, it's clearly better if it's done in a name of your own. Happy editing.__ E L A Q U E A T E  02:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if it was the username of another account, then it could probably be enforced under WP:SIGFORGE. Technical 13 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still curious about what happens if someone (User:Macaroni) is using something like "Hero" as a signature nickname for a significant amount of time before there is any User:Hero, and then someone picks the User:Hero username. Would there be a push to change the longstanding nickname, or would the new user be asked to change? __ E L A Q U E A T E
 * Note that it could go the other way: an established user could have a longstanding nickname of "hero" and a new user could choose "hero" as a username.
 * It isn't very satisfying, but I believe that the answer would be situation-dependent. If both users are non-notable (not an administrator, not a WMF employee, no BLP article, not a real-world name) and have never edited the same pages, we might just ignore the issue. There may be nicknames that duplicate usernames already and we just haven't searched for them. If the two have interacted. especially recently, whoever was first would almost certainly win.
 * Another edge case; what if, when I first edited Wikipedia 8 years ago, someone already had "Guy Macon" as a nickname or even a user name? (Lets assume they live in Macon and picked it randomly, using Jesse Ventura or Indiana Jones as inspiration, as opposed to trying to impersonate me.) That's my legal name. Would they have been asked to change it? Would I have been prevented from having this username? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or at another Wikipedia, as the "Hero" example shows: first here, or first anywhere?  I think we'd use common sense and a community discussion to make decisions for each case, rather than trying to set down one rule for all circumstances.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I hadn't considered that. I had been trying to use example usernames that weren't currently in use, but I hadn't thought about other wiki-projects. I think parts of that issue are covered here but I don't think it mentions anything about SUL conflicts involving only nickname issues, so it would probably be handled as you suggest. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors can choose their usernames with huge freedom, and can change them easily. So choosing a username and hiding it with a nickname is a pointless way of making life more difficult for other editors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion has become an unproductive poke fight between two editors now and is just circular. Can someone who hasn't participated (or someone who feels there is an appropriate other guideline or essay or something I'm not fully aware) close this discussion now, please?  THank you. Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, where an editor is not doing it with the Intent to impersonate another editor, that editor hasn't really done anything wrong until the issue is raised with them, and if valid, they ignore it. Depending on the totality of the circumstances, including who got there first, the activity levels of both, and whether the editor who got there first is complaining about it, it may be necessary to ask the person using the nickname as a signature to do something to avoid confusion. That said, trying to come up with a general rule for a rare, and very circumstantial issue is WP:CREEP. Monty  845  05:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally find it annoying when signatures do not reasonably match account names, but there general wikipedia consensus has been to tolerate these editors, and in at least one case, elect them to the arbitration committee. On my browser, at least, if I hover over the sig the interface pops the real name, so it's not that big a deal. NE Ent 12:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see all signatures being required to display the username in full, unchanged, linked to either the user page or user talk. Colour it if you, add a nickname afterwards – e.g. MyRegisteredUserName (Jim) or BrownHairedGirl/BHG – but display the username with exactly the same sequence of characters as it will appear in the revision history.
 * I agree, and I think the idea of appending nicknames in parentheses is a very sensible suggestion. - Pointillist (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent, but honestly don't care if it is the username or nickname in the parenthesis... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. The corollary is that the username must be explicitly formatted as a link so that it can be distinguished from a nickname. I see various comments here referring to hovering/mousing over names to find out more details etc., but we can't rely on readers having the ability to find important information that way. Hovering isn't an technique that translates well to touch-based interfaces like tablets, and it doesn't work properly for readers who have motor control difficulties or who are using screen readers. This is typical of requirements creep conversations, isn't it? We're negotiating details in isolation rather than going back to first principles. - Pointillist (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Wanna fight"
Is just me or a signature saying "Wanna fight" can be considered disruptive, and if read by a newbie kinda bitey. I'm wondering as I've seen this with an user. I won't say the name, just want to know if it is incorrect, and if it is, discuss it with the user. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it depends on the tone (formatting) of the signature. Can you provide the look of the signature without the username (just use Example)?  I mean, if it is a pink lettering with curly scripted letters or something, it's probably not bad. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is Example (wanna fight?. In itself it is not disruptive, but the user comments are really agressive, which gives the signature more agressiveness: "Where's my popcorn? Listen, [Placeholder], Nobody here cares that you are a big [Artist] fan, it clearly says that on your page :LOL:, and the album received mixed reviews and that's FINAL. I mean girl, there's like tons of people that have disagreed with you, and for real its been like four months and you've been seriously still trying? It shows it... [...] And Dude or whatever you are, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED on my input,..." ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are being otherwise disruptive, then the content of their signature is not really relevant and disruption is not allowed anyways. I'd say that signature is fine (I've seen worse). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Help on signature
Hello, Currently this is my signature. "Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk. Is there any problem with this ? I've put welcome messge to many users but now I see my signature have been removed and only 4 ~ signs are there please suggest me. Shall I change this ?--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC) But I still don't see why we put up with this messing with usernames in sigs.  Editors can choose their own username, and this editor chose User:Jnanaranjan sahu rather than the unused User:J sahu or User:J Sahu.  Having made that choice, why display not just display the username as is? Much as I dislike WP:FLOW, one good aspect of it is that it eliminates all this nonsense of disguising usernames. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually is very blurry and illegible on my laptop with my crappy resolution. I would increase the font size to probably 14px, ditch the text-shadow, and make your name bold like: Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk. This is much more legible to me (although that is still a tough font to read, I don't want to suggest changing too much). Good luck! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * you need to use instead of  .  I would suggest you go back through your recent edits and correct this. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank You I got solutions for my two question. Well quick reply. Have a good time--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not specify the font size in px, because you don't know what resolution or text size other readers are using. If you really must specify a font size, please please use a relative size: e.g. "font-size:90%" or "font-size:110%".
 * But in any case, why not just whatever default font is in use? It's easily read, and works on any browser. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Brown HairedGirlThank You everyone for the responses. I've changed it now. I also felt the same so changed. Is it ok now or need modification ? Please tell me what you feel-- J Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 08:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jnanaranjan sahu. That's better; using the default fontsize is much more flexible.
 * However, the main purpose of a sig is to identify you to others, which is best done by displaying your actual username. It is not a requirement to display it precisely, but doing so does make it easier for other editors to identify you, and to associate the sig with a user name.  Why not display the full username?
 * Also, it is conventional (tho not required) for your sig to include a link to your talk page, and the default signature does that. When the link is there, it is much easier for other editors to send you a message.
 * It's fine to stylise your sig if you want to, but it's a pity that you haven't paid a little more attention to the purpose of a sig. Your current sig looks pretty, but it is significantly less helpful to other editors than the default sig. Why do you want be unhelpful? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your new signature looks much better, is representative of your username, and since it does contain a link to the talk page, I'm not sure what was getting at there.  As far as her question "Why do you want be unhelpful?"; I find it a little BITEy even if her intentions were good. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had somehow missed the talk page link. I have struck that part of my comment.
 * Not a problem with the talk page link. As far as "messing with usernames in sigs" goes, in this particular case, I see it as the same reason we use "dr." instead of "doctor" or "admin" instead of "administrator" (which is technically wrong anyways because they are "sysop" to the system which is also a hack abbreviation of "system operator").  Now, I agree, we use  to place our signature, so why do we need to abbreviate?  My answer to that is our brains (well some of them) have been trained to use and read abbreviations, so they are more comfortable and easier to read.  That is, at least, my take on it. , since User:J sahu and User:J Sahu both seem to be untaken, and if that is what you would prefer to be called, you may considering visiting WP:CHU/S and requesting a username change to the abbreviated version.  Just an option to consider. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of "Disruptive links" section
As an outcropping of the above RfC about marking the links section as policy, which has resulted in several opposes (mine included) over the current wording of the "Disruptive links" section, I have created a proposed rewriting that will clarify the boundary between acceptable and not acceptable in a manner that would alleviate the concerns over the "Disruptive links" section. It's a change I believe is for the best regardless of the RfC. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ  Wha?  02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Current version
It is better to put information on your user page rather than in your signature. Brief additional internal links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose.

Do not place any disruptive internal links (especially when combined with custom formatting, for example CLICK HERE!!! ) in your signature.

Proposed replacement
It is better to put personal information on your user page, as opposed to in your signature. Brief additional external links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or project functions, but are not acceptable when used for canvassing. Linking to a Wikiproject or open discussion (RfC, FAC, VP proposal) is acceptable, so long as your signature does not advocate that people take a specific position in the linked discussion. Linking to your user page or user talk page on another project is also acceptable, but only in addition to, not as a replacement for, a link to your user page or user talk page on this project. Linking to your RfA, while not prohibited by this guideline, will likely lead people to oppose your candidacy.

Do not place disruptively formatted internal links (such as CLICK HERE!!! ) in your signature.

Comments

 * Support as nominator. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this wording as much better clarified and easier to implement and enforce. I still oppose making this a policy, though. There's no reason to make it a policy as it's more of a style guideline for the project space and talk pages. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - a couple of things: first, "external links" means links to other websites, so that should be rephrased. Second, "Linking to your RfA, while not prohibited by this guideline, will likely lead people to oppose your candidacy" - I think that's unnecessary. If something isn't prohibited (or mandated) by a rule or guideline, mentioning it just adds clutter, or worse, ambiguity. The claim in question is also not supportable by evidence. So, it should be dropped. Otherwise, I think this is fine. —  Scott  •  talk  11:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But see Requests for adminship/Nominate; putting a link in your sig to an RFA might be seen as canvassing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Might be, might not be. Let's not make a habit of obscuring our rules with speculation. —  Scott  •  talk  09:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * oppose the change, oppose the change itself, and oppose changing things on parallel discussions so that discussions are harder to follow and consensus harder to assess - Nabla (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Appearance and color" cleanup
This provision is confused, both technologically and with regards to clarity:


 * Avoid markup such as and (or more) tags (which produce big text), as well as line breaks ( tags), since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. The use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

It should be replaced with something like:
 * Except for very small characters, avoid markup such as and  tags (which enlarge text); this will often disrupt the way that surrounding text displays.
 * Do not use line breaks (, which can also negatively affect nearby text display. The use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

The size stuff and linebreak stuff are not conceptually related and shouldn't be in the same bullet. The large font-size stuff is not always problematic, only for larger characters. Some characters, including useful ones like ☏, are not very legible unless enlarged a bit. Enlarging them with is messy;  exists in wikimarkup for a reason. I also tightened up the rambling text a bit (don't use "produce"-type constructions unless there's a real reason to).

Note also the removal of the weird "(or more)" note; the principle is what is important here, not an easily WP:GAMEable pseudo-rule (which suggests that is always okay; cf. also WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP). That was also ungrammatical (the proper word would be "larger"), a misuse of superscripting, and hard to parse, since it was intended to apply to the "200", not to the entire sample of markup.

I'm at least going to WP:BOLDly separate the unrelated thoughts. I also fixed a case of "and" vs. "or" confusion in this passage earlier (hint: "or" indicates an exclusive relationship, "follow this rule or that, not both", not inclusive, "follow this rule and that, simultaneously").

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  10:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Promoting the links section to policy
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is relatively lightly trafficked. Seventeen supports may just about be enough to upgrade something to policy status if they were unanimous, but there is significant opposition that raises coherent concerns about creep and about the wording of a specific subsection. This may well find consensus if the wording can be addressed to the oposers' satisfaction, but for now, there is no consensus to upgrade the section to policy. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the entire section on links was not included in the above discussion about promoting to policy. I can recall a small but definite number of occasions where people with wacky linkless signatures had to be forced to change them through the threat of administrative action - likewise with transcluded templates. Given that the other promotions to policy seemed to have broad acceptance, how about making this section policy as well? Are there any parts of it that people specifically feel should not be policy? —  Scott  •  talk  16:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) At Wikipedia (and elsewhere), signatures exist to facilitate communication. As I've commented in the past, there's no valid reason to use a link-free signature, which accomplishes nothing other than making communication more difficult for other users. This is true even when someone signs his/her exact user name, a circumstance that the absence of a signature obfuscates. (Are people supposed to assume that the unlinked name accurately reflects that of the account?) Such tampering also forces hand-typing or copying/pasting, which isn't always easy in certain situations (e.g. when someone is using a mobile device or screen reader). Requiring users to refrain from editing their signatures for the express purpose of disabling a helpful automatic feature isn't "instruction creep". Conversely, inventing pointless exceptions to clear-cut rules is instruction creep. —David Levy 01:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Firstly, that isn't a narrow exception. It would constitute permission for any editor to use a link-free signature, provided that his/her actual account name appears therein. Secondly, SarekOfVulcan's argument is that it's acceptable for editors to deliberately hinder others' efforts to communicate with them (because "you can get a talk link from the history page, if you really feel the need to get in touch with someone"). I find this attitude utterly baffling.
 * 1) Support. I guess it got missed because its not a frequent problem. NE Ent 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, at the very least the part on internal links. 6 an 6 sh 6 04:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support promoting to policy.
 * 1) Support as a very good idea. Should be promoted. APersontalk! 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, most sensible proposal. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support adopting WP:Signatures as policy. The user's desire for self-expression should not take precedence over the needs of other editors to follow discussion threads and keep track of who is who. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Arguing "but it's only a guideline so I can have no links if I want to" just wastes everyone's time. The community wants link(s). Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  Conditional Support. This is undeniably useful where an editor is using a nickname, but to avoid instruction creep there should be an exception for the case where editors sign with their exact user name. That is: if your name actually is Example the policy should permit you to sign as Example without any links; but if you sign as example, Ex@mple, EXΑΜΡΛΕ, etc., policy should require you to link to your true identity . - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI here are earlier discussions about links in signatures&mdash;maybe those concerned should be notified of this RfC? - Pointillist (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No links in a signature (January 2008)
 * Require link to usertalk page in signatures? (April 2009)
 * RfC on lack of links in Docu's signature (July 2009)
 * Signatures must include at least one internal link, elevation to policy? (August 2009). It was after this that David Levy changed the guideline from "some editors will view" to "is widely viewed" as obstructive ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Signatures&diff=306008438&oldid=306006999 diff]).
 * MoS Accessibility of Signatures (draft)
 * OK, I'm removing the "conditional" exception in my support – it doesn't seem to have stuck a chord and anyway I'm broadly in agreement so let's bury the hatchet on this. - Pointillist (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, without Pointillist's proposed exception (which has no basis in consensus).
 * I can't agree with Pointillist's proposed exception either. A signature should have a link to your user page, full stop. —  Scott  •  talk  10:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of having that (very narrow) exception was to address SarekOfVulcan's concern. This clearly is instruction creep, because the guideline already says that a link is required, and Scott Martin hasn't given any examples of users who need extra coercion. Nevertheless it is indeed a good idea, though it could be better – you haven't said anything about the anchor being rendered so it looks like a link, or being large enough to click safely, both of which are potential issues on a mobile device (e.g. try identifying and clicking the links in 6 an 6 sh 6 on a smartphone). - Pointillist (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of those latter points are contained in the current guidance, so they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to add them to the guidance, you can do so in the normal fashion, not in this RfC. Regarding "examples of users", the point of regulation is to address future infractions. Your proposed exception would serve to do nothing except create a confusing two-tier system for users based on their user name. —  Scott  •  talk  13:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do it just fine, thank you very much. 6 an 6 sh 6 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow. This is a proposal to designate that portion of the guideline a policy. You've proposed the creation of a brand new exception, which would greatly weaken the longstanding rule by limiting it to editors whose signatures don't contain their exact user names. —David Levy 22:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC) A link is necessary under the established guidelines, period. Again, you seek to invent a brand new exception, thereby greatly weakening the longstanding rule. Why? How, in your view, would such a change benefit Wikipedia? —David Levy 00:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my proposed exception applies only if the signature is their exact user name. If the name is padded with other characters or presented in a misleading way then a link is necessary under the established guidelines. Anything that misleads any reader is wrong, period, and I believe it would be unwise for the Flow system to allow nicknames as signatures, except possibly where these are doppelganger accounts of the actual signatory. - Pointillist (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC) UPDATE I've just noticed BrownHairedGirl's very sensible idea of displaying the username in full, followed by any nickname in parentheses, e.g. BrownHairedGirl (BHG). I'd support that approach in Flow. - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with no exceptions. Links in sigs are such a useful tool for interaction that their omission is disruptive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as proposed by Scott. The default signature already does this, of course, but if people want to customize their sigs, let's make sure they're aware that there's a minimum threshold for accessibility and ease of communication. 28bytes (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) We're an encyclopedia project, not a forum for self-expression.   Sandstein   10:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't an RfC about stopping signature formatting, or preventing the use of nicknames&mdash;I'm sure the vast majority of normal editors would support both of those. This is speculating that in future it'll be less disruptive for a contributor to sign with a nickname – which they can change at any time, and which doesn't correlate with the page history – if at least one character is (maybe invisibly) wiki-linked to their user identity, than it would be if the contributor signed with their true user name but no link; and it claims that this is such a pressing problem that it needs to be raised to the level of policy. I'm still unconvinced. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're conflating separate issues. The idea that not including a link is bad doesn't imply that those other things are good.  And as discussed below, purposely hiding/disguising the link constitutes gaming the system (which isn't tolerated).  —David Levy 00:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "We're an encyclopedia project, not a forum for self-expression." says the guy with the big blue box with white/black striped border for a signature.... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of such styling, but it doesn't appear to impede others' ability to initiate contact. The community tolerates a good deal of self-expression (more than I'd prefer), but not that which interferes with Wikipedia's mission.  —David Levy 00:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A signature with a link should be required for edits to talk pages. It is dickish to make it difficult for other editors to find ones talk page. Edison (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Mostly Support. I support promoting all parts of the Links section EXCEPT the Internal links subsection to policy, as they really shouldn't be controversial. I don't see how anyone could argue against barring disruptive links, external links, categories, and templates; in fact, I think several of those are already covered by existing policy (which brings up redundancy issues, but oh well). But I do see the points on both sides for internal links, so I think it best that that one subsection remain a guideline. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'm dealing right now with a case where a newcomer got into trouble partly because an established editor had obfuscated their talk link: a totally foreseeable problem. Let's not make things so hard for new editors. As a step towards that, let's not make it so easy to make things hard for new editors. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support promoting to policy. My only caveats are that I would not want to prohibit signatures on one's own user page—if not done in a manner that makes it appear like a talk page, and suggest that substituted signature pages be protected, or at least watchlisted, to make it harder to vandalize them without the user knowing. User-page signatures should probably not be timestamped. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Signatures are meant to quickly identify the user. "Advertising" WProjects, FA requests, should be left out of it. When you talk at any public place (non-web, out there), or simply meet a friend, do you finish all your sentences with "Save the Whales!"? - Nabla (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you wouldn't end it with your name either, so that's kinda moot. 6 an 6 sh 6 18:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice :-) Off course, if one stretches a analogy too far it inevitably breaks, because one thing is not strictly the other. As much as you were clever in realising where the analogy breaks, I bet you also realise what it means. - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) (Save the analogies!)
 * Of course, I just like pointing them out! 6 an 6 sh 6 20:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
I'm aware of zero instances in which the community has deemed a link-free signature acceptable under any circumstance.
 * 1) Oppose. As long as the signature isn't misleading, this one would be instruction creep. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to why you think this one is "instruction creep" yet you thought the others weren't. Care to elaborate? —  Scott  •  talk  17:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more of a convenience thing, where the others address misrepresentation or technical/accessibility issues. You can get a talk link from the history page, if you really feel the need to get in touch with someone.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's not okay to mislead people, but it is okay to make their life harder. Sorry, I can't agree with that at all. —  Scott  •  talk  18:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Better than misleading them and making their lives easier...-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, agreeing with Sarek. Unless this proves to be a problem, why make it a hard & fast rule? -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Not trying to badger opposers, just replying.) As the Docu RfC from 2009 linked above shows, this has notably been proven to be a problem, and one that's been a royal pain to resolve when it has happened. The idea is to prevent that happening again. —  Scott  •  talk  17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It already is a "hard & fast rule" (as there's never been consensus that an exception is justified for any reason). The misconception that the rule may be ignored at will (because it's "only a guideline") has contributed to the recurring problem to which Scott Martin referred.  —David Levy 22:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationale in the Docu case was that Docu was also an admin, & admins need to be reachable. Docu was also an old hand who started with Wikipedia before many of the rules & guidelines were created, so that case was more of getting him to update his signature. Otherwise, as Kusma & WhatamIdoing point out below, this is so rare -- has there been another WP:AN/I case since Docu back in 2009? -- that it's a solution looking for a problem. (If a new user failed to link her/his signature after repeated requests, that would simply be one of many pieces of evidence proving said person was not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, & there'd be a number of reasons to deal with this person.) But if people need rules instead of guidelines to feel safe & comfortable... -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone needs to be reachable, not just admins. And, as David points out, in practice this is a rule already; "guideline" is a meaningless misnomer. —  Scott  •  talk  18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, given this section's similarity to those recently relabeled "policy", excluding it from the change could be misinterpreted as a de facto downgrade. —David Levy 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Not a frequent problem, so it does not need to be written policy. Warn and block people if their sig is truly problematic, leave them alone unless it is absolutely necessary. And what Sarek said. Also, we already have too many policies, and should try to reduce the amount of written policy we have instead of needlessly adding to it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're discussing a rule that's already been written (and for which no exception has been deemed valid by the community). Are you of the opinion that simply changing its label from "guideline" to "policy" would somehow increase bureaucracy or otherwise complicate matters?  Why, in your view, is it preferable to "warn and block people" instead of making it clear from the start that the behavior in question is unacceptable?  —David Levy 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that all the behaviour that this is about is absolutely unacceptable. Changing the label from "guideline" to "policy" mainly means you have a bigger stick to beat people with that have different opinions about signatures. The general observation that Wikipedia has too many rules stands. I find it preferable to allow people to behave in an annoying way compared to forcing conformity, especially in such trivial matters as their signatures. And I know at least one editor who has an unlinked signature (which has never caused problems, at least none visible in the talk page archive), and I find that preferable to "font" tags and shadows and colors, all of which are allowed although they annoy me. —Kusma (t·c) 19:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That statement is based on the common misconception that guidelines are less enforceable than policies are. This is the very misunderstanding that leads to problems (including blocks stemming from disruption that otherwise wouldn't have occurred). Guidelines typically leave more wiggle room than policies do. Compliance is non-optional, but it often is possible to deviate from the letter of a guideline without straying from the spirit. This is not such a case, as there simply is no valid exception to the rule as worded. This proposal isn't about making it stricter; it's about labeling it accurately.

Perhaps so, but this one exists already (and has for years).

I see nothing trivial about tampering with one's signature for the express purpose of disabling an automatic feature that facilitates communication. Editing Wikipedia isn't an entitlement. The community demands little in return, but it doesn't tolerate deliberate attempts to make collaboration more difficult for others.

To whom are you referring?

Annoyance ≠ difficulty communicating. Again, this isn't about outlawing anything; it's about clarifying the community's position on behavior that already is disallowed. If you believe that it shouldn't be disallowed, you're welcome to propose the longstanding rule's elimination. —David Levy 01:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Regardless, the rule already exists and is enforced. If it's ambiguous, the solution is to reword it. What adverse effect would changing its label from "guideline" to "policy" have (and how would this constitute instruction creep)? —David Levy 02:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The general observation that Wikipedia has too many rules stands. Actually Kusma, that's just some people's opinion. —  Scott  •  talk  15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That it is an opinion does not make it incorrect. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as this is CREEP, not to mention this section is currently ambiguous.  As this section is written, " Technical _ 13 " would be an acceptable signature for me to have. As policy, there will be no ability to tell someone that they are not allowed to have that type of thing as a signature.  I can obviously come up with much more troublesome examples, but I think I'll keep those to myself. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 02:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When a user technically complies with the letter of policy but not the spirit, he/she is gaming the system. You're mistaken in your belief that we're powerless to deal with this.
 * Policies are local laws, and laws are governed by what is written, not by what the intended spirit of the idea was. Guidelines are governed by the intended spirit when written.  This is why criminals get away scot-free, because of loopholes in the way that laws are written.  As such, if the proposed policy was amended to be exactly representative of the spirit that the guideline was written upon, I would change my oppose to a support. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of Wikipedia's policies (and what sets them apart from guidelines) is inaccurate. Please read Policies and guidelines.  —David Levy 00:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical 13, given your history of disruptive editing to do with signatures, I would strongly advise you that this is not an area to involve yourself. —  Scott  •  talk  15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott, I really do not need your advice here, and respectfully request that you stop stalking me and making harassing comments, threats, and other subtle personal attacks. It's really not productive.  I've never been banned from discussing signatures, my current signature is in complete compliance, I'm still a member of this community and have as much right as everyone else to voice my opinion, and am again going to politely ask you to avoid further comments like this by letting the past be the past.  If you can't do that, please take it up with me personally on my talk page, or take me to AN about it for all I care, but these public discussions are not the place to bring it up over and over and over.  Thank you for your cooperation. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll pass over the silly accusations and links to twee essays. Nobody has said you were banned from anything. This has been a notably problematic area for you in the recent past. I'm yet to be convinced that it definitely won't be again. —  Scott  •  talk  16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has encountered practical issues with this page in the past means that we need his perspective. When everyone agrees and nobody looks at the other side, the result is usually a poor policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose.  Why bother?  I've seen a couple over the years.  They're rare.  If it's a person whom people need to contact regularly, then we make them change it.  If it's just a random gnome that gets a message every year or two, then we don't bother.  We are pretty good at balancing the convenience of the metapedians (like me) against the potential to irritate or upset good editors.  Since the problem can already be solved easily, calling this "policy" isn't going to do anything (except perhaps further exacerbate the impression that guidelines are optional). Also, if someone wants to make it difficult, then please note that this: , which produces a signature of  is valid under SIGLINK, and it will still drive convenience-oriented people nuts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are certain to be lots of weird edge cases, but they can always be dealt with individually should the community feel it necessary to. The spirit and the letter, and all that. —  Scott  •  talk  10:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Unless the "Disruptive links" section is rewritten, I am uncomfortable making the whole links section policy. Would 's signature, which links to WP Japan, be acceptable? Would 's signature, which links to his open FAC, be acceptable? Nihonjoe is actively canvassing for members for a WikiProject through the link/wording of his signature, but I have never seen a problem with it. Darkwarriorblade's signature says "Comment on Dishonored's FA nom!", which I don't see as problematic either (I would be less inclined to back it if he said "support" instead of "comment"). These are both signatures that do no harm, but would become "against policy" should this proposal pass. I have no problem making the other four subsections policy, but I think that the "Disruptive links" section casts too wide and too ill-defined a net. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Sven Manguard, I can understand abuse of links but there cannot be a blanket ban, my signature allows me to promote an open FAC wherever I go rather than adding it to a relevant wikiproject that gets virtually no replies, I have had people from completely unrelated areas stop buy to comment. This is a benefit to Wikipedia, helping properly promote or improve FAC articles. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dishonoreds FA nom! 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)''
 * 3) Oppose per several of the above comments. Unless it can be shown to be actively disruptive, I don't see an issue with links in signatures. The only requirements for a signature should be a) linking directly to the user page and/or user talk page, b) not being inordinately long, and c) not being deceptive (e.g., linking to a different user's pages, having the text indicate a different user and linking to your own pages, etc.) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So to the three above Opposes You guys support most of the current section, but not one specific section? Maybe you guys should start a new header for that. 6 an 6 sh 6 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I went one better and proposed below a rewriting of the section, which would make clear that signatures like and 's are within policy.  Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  02:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also oppose making this into a policy. It is no more than a style guideline for signatures, and it should remain that way. If something is obviously disruptive in some manner, that would fall under other policies better able to handle such issues. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Sig
does anyone notice that my sig: Titus  Fox  'Tribs is too long for the prefrences box because of the 'Tribs thing? Titus Fox  'Tribs 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I make it 259 characters. That is a violation of WP:SIGLEN; please shorten it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * should work just fine... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and of course, never forget to give attribution as to where you "borrow" your signatures from :-)  D  P  09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done by transclusion in my userpage since the prefrences bit doesn't allow... Titus  Fox  'Tribs 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. Where did you "borrow" the basic aspects of your signature formatting from?  Did you attibute that user somewhere?  ...and did you just say you're transcluding something?  It's still 259 characters.   ES  &#38;L  12:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Technical 13, My Sig now works! And Preferences Allows the sig! Thanks DP for the idea! Titus  Fox  'Tribs 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, Aren't ES&L and DP the same person? Titus  Fox  'Tribs 14:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is This Okay?
I want to use my signature from Wikia, which looks like this:. The actual code for the signature is in User:Supertoastfairy/SigReal, and the code that displays in edit mode is User:Supertoastfairy/Sig. In preferences I would click "Treat the above as wiki markup" and paste this text into the box:

Is this going against anything in the signature guidelines (yes, I have read them I'm still unsure in regards to my signature), in regards to colors and templates and such? For substitution, I put it in the preferences rather than in the signature itself, though I'm not sure whether or not that makes any difference. Supertoastfairy (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you signed a post on a talk page using your preferred signature, what would someone see when editing the page later? If it is a template, then no, the signature does not comply with WP:SIG. If it is a long string of gobbledygook, then again it does not comply. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When editing, a user would see . It doesn't clutter the page with wiki text nonsense, nor have I created a template page to house it in. I simply created one subpage to hold the full signature, and then another subpage to make the signature shorter when in edit mode. Supertoastfairy (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The page User:Supertoastfairy/SigReal counts as a template, even though it is not in Template: namespace, because it is transcluded. It therefore violates WP:SIG. Regarding appearance and accessibility:
 * the <small ></small> gives approximately 78% of the default font size, which is below the recommended minimum of 85%;
 * the contrast ratio between and  in the text <span style="background-color:#000; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(top, #444 35%, #000 65%); background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, color-stop(35%, #444), color-stop(65%, #000));"> Supertoastfairy  is 4.04, which fails WCAG 2.0 level AA (although it would pass if a much larger font - 18pt or larger - were used). If you omit the gradient from the background, the contrast ratio between  and  is 8.71, which passes WCAG 2.0 level AAA.
 * the contrast ratio between and  in the text <span style="background-color:#000; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(top, #444 35%, #000 65%); background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, color-stop(35%, #444), color-stop(65%, #000));"><span style="background-color:#000; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(top, #444 35%, #000 65%); background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, color-stop(35%, #444), color-stop(65%, #000)); color:#D79D00;"> Talk   is 6.06, which passes WCAG 2.0 level AA but fails WCAG 2.0 level AAA (although it would pass if a much larger font - 18pt or larger - were used). If you omit the gradient from the background, the contrast ratio between  and  is 13.08, which passes WCAG 2.0 level AAA.
 * All in all, I would say that it is not acceptable. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like and  summed it up pretty well.  The only thing they left out is that even if you were to substitute it so that it wouldn't violate WP:SIG, it would still violate WP:SIGLEN because the source code for it is way over the 255 character limit. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 10:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was under the impression that the 255 character limit only applied to the preferences or to the wikitext that appeared in the signed page. Do you know of a page where I can see other acceptable signatures similar to this one that I may draw inspiration from? Supertoastfairy (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When expanded to wiki markup (not to full HTML), your present signature is 1504 bytes plus the length of the timestamp. This can be reduced as follows:
 * Remove the <small ></small> and the gradients (accessibility, see above);
 * Remove the -moz-border-radius properties, because Firefox now recognises the standard border-radius properties;
 * Condense duplicated styling and remove other redundant styling - for example, the background-color only needs to be given once, not three times
 * Using these techniques I have produced  Supertoastfairy  Talk   Such rationalisation brings it down to 389 bytes plus the length of the timestamp, which is about 26% of the size, but still too big. You will have to sacrifice some more styling in order to bring it under 255 bytes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that'll be a project for me today. Supertoastfairy (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tangential discussion at Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline
Hi. There's a tangential discussion at Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline about, in some ways, whether articles should be signed. Any and all are welcome to participate in the request for comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Font" Deprecated?
An editor edited my signature on their talk page; I objected, but on closer investigation I find he was entitled to do so. My signature includes " " tags for colour, as per the tutorial at Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial which is linked from this page. ("For guidance on how to use color to customize the appearance of your signature, see this Tutorial.")

I now see that the guidelines include "Avoid deprecated markup such as the tag", and that "If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, ... you may edit the signature to the standard form" is one of the exceptional cases at WP:TPO where it is acceptable to edit other people's talk page comments (though that exception is probably intended for disruptive signatures, not just those using a deprecated markup).

Can I ask that something here be fixed, so that editors who have followed the links to the tutorial do not then find their signature being "cleaned up" by other editors? I've raised the same question at Wikipedia talk:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial but suggest that any discussion would be better here on a more-frequented page. Pam D  12:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only mention of is in the section WP:SIGAPP which is now policy (see  above). Wikipedia policies do not have to take into account something that is on a user's subpage. As regards deprecation, the FONT element has been deprecated since at least HTML 4.01 (24 December 1999); in the present HTML 5 spec, it is marked as obsolete. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's on a user's subpage ... but it's linked to from Signatures with the words "For guidance on how to use color to customize the appearance of your signature, see this Tutorial." Is there an alternative, user-friendly, page to which editors can be signposted if they want to jazz up their signature but aren't familiar with HTML markup?  Pam  D  11:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for reporting that. WP:SIGAPP (a policy) includes:
 * For guidance on how to use color to customize the appearance of your signature, see this Tutorial.

The link is to the user page mentioned above. There should be some information somewhere, but generally a policy would not link to a user page, and up to date examples are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated the page to use  instead of . I'd be fine with having the page moved to the Wikipedia: space though (it originally wasn't, way back in the day, because creating signatures wasn't thought to be important to creating an encyclopedia). Already, people have been maintaining the page independently of me. Smurrayinchester 12:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that added that to WP:SIG a few months back because it seemed like a logical thing to do, I went through a few tutorials that I could find on the matter scattered all about the wiki and tried to update them to use non-deprecate (obsolete) code and I must have over-looked that one. Typically, I don't edit others signatures that have that issue, as I find it is inappropriate.  What I think the appropriate thing to do is (and I've only done it with visitors to my talk page) let the editor know there is an issue with their signature, offer a suitable replacement, and have them fix it in their preferences to prevent future issues of the "bad" signature.  Fixing the actual old signature on the page without fixing the root of the problem is counter productive and disruptive in my opinion and will just lead to drama and WP:ABF. , did the editor that was "fixing" your signatures let you know on your talk page that they were fixing them and why they were fixing them?  If not, someone should leave a note on their talk page (I'd be happy to) stating that notification needs to be done.   I believe there is even a warn template for that notification, and IIRC it is available through Twinkle. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , per your comment above, I've taken the liberty of moving your tutorial to Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial and I've run AWB to clean up the CNRs the move made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  for your swift response in fixing a  long-standing problem. And yes, I did discuss it with the editor who "fixed" my sig - though of course he was technically in the right, as WP:TPO allows anyone to correct signatures which aren't compliant with WP:SIG as one of the exceptions to "Don't edit other people's talk page comments".
 * I've now updated my sig to be compliant (I hope) with Policy - and here's its first use: Pam  D  17:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Respect and congratulations that you have done it after 15 years. The same is with the "center-tag" or is it more legitimate?<small style='white-space:nowrap'> -- πϵρήλιο  12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But anyway, the nice thing about the stylistic signatures is, you can immediately recognize from which mind this person is or not.<small style='white-space:nowrap'> -- πϵρήλιο  12:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , people use <center ></center> in signatures? I've never seen it, but I don't see how it would be useful, not violate WP:SIGLEN, and not have had the user told to correct it.  For the record, your   is also deprecated/not supported in HTML5. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes your are fully right, I know, I forgot to removed it for years. Then the "center" is meaning for generally the most deprecation tag widespread on Wikipedia. PS. IMHO your signature looks really very ugly, like your forgot the option "Treat the above as wiki markup." <small style='white-space:nowrap'> -- πϵρήλιο  13:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As a technical person and a, my signature looking like a template was what I was going for. ;) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? I know that SIGAPP became policy in February, but the whole avoid the "font" tag was added in March. Where is the consensus for making that change, especially as that section is now under the iron claw of policy? My sig does not display properly when used with "span" instead of "font". czar ♔  22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * czar ♔  looks fine to me. What problems do you see? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , the color of the underline. You can see it in Technical's screenshot comparison. czar ♔  22:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

* crickets chirping* So, what now? It should either be approved or removed. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it for now per BRD. We can discuss it here further, if necessary, but I laid out my rationale just above czar ♔  23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I figured it out:  works in every browser without using bad code.  Also, I don't even see the underline in your current signature just above here.  There is no valid reason that people should be adding unsupported html coding in their signatures. Since your issue is resolved, can we restore this back into policy? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice—appreciate that. I'm retracting my revert because my objection is resolved. This said, it's kind of messed up to have lines unilaterally sneaked into policy, no? I recommend at least having some consensus somewhere before adding something like that. Just a thought since I'm unwatching now Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔   00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was never consensus to put something that major into policy, so, the removal has been rightfully restored the panda ₯’  00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it lasting 92 days with no objections was consensus by editing. I mean, it's not going to be much longer before HTML 3.2 isn't supported by browsers anymore and do we really want to have a site that people can't use because a whole unch of code is broken?  Most of these tags are deprecated in 4.01 traditional, invalid in 4.01 strict, and not supported at all in 5.  We really should try and keep up or we'll fall way behind. , what do you think about deprecated code seeing as I know you are a css guru? To quote  just above, the FONT element has been deprecated since at least HTML 4.01 (24 December 1999); in the present HTML 5 spec, it is marked as obsolete.. Do we want to keep adding code that was marked invalid almost 15 years ago?  Anyone else that is up to speed on the advancements in HTML standards and css that can expand on my hypothesis based on the latest reports?  I mean, I know that FireFox doesn't support all CSS2 standards any more, how much further can HTML 3.2 standards be behind?  Let's start a formal RfC on this... Why not... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because no one noticed/reverted your change doesn't mean it has/had consensus. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the policy template above the section says, "Changes made to it should reflect consensus", not "make your changes and if they aren't challenged they will become policy". -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 13:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I've understood this all correctly, the problem is that the "font" code should be avoided, not that "people shouldn't use fonts". So if we're going to do useful things, and avoid unnecessary disputes, what we need to say is something like "don't use 'font', use 'span'".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , the wording that they are objecting to was Avoid deprecated markup such as the tag., and I would have absolutely no objection to adding "Use XXX instead" to that. My concern about that is that font isn't the only deprecated tag that MDN says "Do not use this element!" (the separate "Do not" and the exclamation are not my emphasis for clarity).  Anyways, the RfC is at Village pump (proposals) and I encourage everyone to comment there. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of CSS2 is no longer supported by Firefox? CSS2 is still a current W3C Recommendation and was last updated three years ago. Its planned replacement, which some call CSS3, is a long way from being fully approved. Parts of it have reached the level of a W3C Recommendation, so may be considered as standards (such as that concerning Selectors), but most is still at a draft stage. See CSS Current Status and compare the subsection headed "Standards" with the section headed "Drafts". -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I know many around here don't like it, but, which is CSS2, has been dropped from FireFox since version 22 or 23. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The  value was only ever semi-official; the standards never required browser vendors to implement it. Under CSS 1 it was shown as "UAs must recognize the keyword 'blink', but are not required to support the blink effect."; under CSS 2 we find that "Conforming user agents may simply not blink the text. Note that not blinking the text is one technique to satisfy checkpoint 3.3 of WAI-UAAG.". But it is still part of the CSS 3 spec, in the CSS Text Decoration Module Level 3, which is a "W3C Candidate Recommendation" - not a final standard, but a late-stage draft, unlikely to change significantly before being promoted to W3C Recommendation. There, it's described in similar fashion: "Conforming user agents may simply not blink the text. Note that not blinking the text is one technique to satisfy checkpoint 3.3 of WAI-UAAG. This value is deprecated in favor of Animations &#x5B;CSS3-ANIMATIONS&#x5D;." (it's described under the   property, for which   is a shorthand). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have realised for some time that my past signature was an endangered species, but have just now updated it because of the threat of having it changed by someone else. I am commenting only to say that it took me a literal two hours of experimentation to figure out how to closely duplicate my former signature. We need a better tutorial, because I had to entirely DIY through trial and error. I discovered (for some reason) that I could not use hex numbered colors, although I was using as an example, an updated signature that indeed uses hex colors. After a bit of tinkering I found that I could use web colour names other than the primary ones. And the tutorial is not too clear on how to bold, although it says you may. I had to hunt down a user bolded signature to duplicate. Not everyone is going to be ths persistent, I feel. Please tell me if there is a problem with my new one afore I go and change it on at least five other wikis. Fylbecatulous  talk  16:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help if someone created an analogous of de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt HTML5 on English Wikipedia.
 * You can use hex numbered colors: " " results in " Example ". Helder.wiki 16:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I know one may use hex numbered colours; at least in theory and I had an example of an existing one at hand. It would not work for me. Perhaps it was the two I used before: #595454 and #DB7093. Or that I also was attempting to use bold. However, that is a technical issue I have left behind.  Fylbecatulous   talk  17:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll ping you on your talk page in about 45 minutes or so with new code that mirrors your old signature with updated code. On a bus atm. I believe I've posted in a few places that I'm willing to recode anyone's signature on request at my talk page. If anyone was to request here, they'd also be helped by myself or another (and have in the past). Anyways... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome and way cool. My hex colours in my signature matched those of my user and talk page borders and backgrounds, and I am not entirely happy with my "palevioletred" substitute. ツ  Fylbecatulous   talk  17:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki
Why is it that on MediaWiki, in the "signature" section of your preferences, it says you can use templates, while here it says you can't? Are MediaWiki servers faster or something? -- User J  Dalek  23:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Technically speaking" you can use templates in any signature; however, the English Wikipedia has a policy against the use of templates being transcluded in signatures due to the risk that anyone could find your template and change it, causing disruption in doing so. You are allowed to use templates in your signature as long as they are substituted and the final result doesn't violate any of the other parts of the signature policy, most notably the length of the wikitext. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But it MediaWiki doesn't say anything about the templates having to substituted, and here, it says that even substituted templates are discouraged. -- User J  Dalek  22:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is one of 700+ Wikimedia site just like MediaWiki... They are the same. We just have a different set of rules (think of it as multiple countries in a single world, they all have different laws) that discourages use of most templates in signature.  However, there is a proposal just below to which includes an exception for use of a template.  So, these rules exist, but can be changed. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The default message for all sites in English is "", and this is locally customisable to reflect local policies. Compare the (customised) messages for: MediaWiki; Meta; English Wikipedia, notice how they are progressively more restrictive. By contrast, Commons has no local customisation for the message, so it uses the default. Generally speaking. MediaWiki describes technical capabilities and limitations only, with few policies; Meta covers global matters (including policies that affect all sites) and each individual Wikipedia has local policies and practices which may be more restrictive than those of Meta. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

invalid signatures generated for empty preference setting
Somehow my preferences page contained an empty "Signature:" text field, and the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox was checked. Signatures generated with four tildes while using this configuration looked to be correct (to a naive user, at any rate): they contained my username, and the time/date, like this:  Pgf 13:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC). But all of my talk entries for some time have been re-signed by sinebot ("Preceding unsigned comment added by ..."). This was very confusing, since I was using four tildes just as instructed, and something, somewhere, was generating some text for me -- why would it generate incorrect text? I eventually found that the sinebot needs more than this -- it requires that there be a link to my user page. The fix I found was to simply uncheck the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox in my preferences. It seems to me that if the "Signature:" text field in preferences is empty (I don't recall whether that's the default or not -- I created my account in 2005), then the four tilde expander should generate a valid signature whether or not the "treat as markup" checkbox is checked. Pgf (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Signature templates
Aside that you are signing your signature with four tildes, then I remind you to use or  template to stop you from signing much character in it, which are the same as on Wikia with the Nosubst template. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 18:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To whom are you directing your comment? What has got to do with signatures? What does "stop you from signing much character in it" mean? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Nosubst" template means when you sign your signature it replaces the signature template there as a transclusion. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. What it does is to produce this box:


 * Why would anybody sign with that? Furthermore, it goes against WP:SIG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would the signature templates is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia different from Wikia. Containing much character than a signature template. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 20:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you're saying. What is the meaning in English of phrases like (to take two examples) "to stop you from signing much character" and "containing much character than a signature"? Hardly any of this makes sense. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as long as the result has no templates in it and complies with all signature rules, you can subst a template instead of signing. The only reason I have seen for doing it is if you want there to be some sort of randomness to your signature, because all the randomizing code is deleted during the subst, it complies with the rules. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  22:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the result has no transcluded templates in it, substituted templates are ok, but when we try to transclude templates in our signatures, using such things as {{subst:Nosubst2}}, well, see TfD. I do substitute parserfunctions in my sig, but I don't leave them in the result. They do things differently on Wikia, so I'm sure Allen's intentions were good-faith. (By "much character," he was referring to the "benefit" [as seen on Wikia] of transcluding [not substituting] a template instead of signing, which then makes the signature much less distracting when editing the wikicode, no matter how much code you place in the template. [See WP:SIGLEN.] While editing our signatures in our preferences, any parserfunctions or templates are automatically substituted, but {{subst:Nosubst2}} overrides this automatic substitution by transcluding its parameter.) —PC-XT+ 21:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 22:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately for Allen, there is a learning curve. This isn't Wikia. —PC-XT+ 22:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As asked in the related TfD, why isn't WP:SIG policy? Is there a reason, or has it just not happened, yet? —PC-XT+ 22:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 22:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Format
Hi. Does someone know why the layout of the automatic signature is "Name (talk) time, date" rather than "Name (talk), on date at time."? Don't you think that the coma should be directly after the parentheses and that there should be a point at the end?

5678 THE 4329 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
 * It's the format that is recognised by scripts and bots across all Wikimedia projects. For example, page archiving has been known to fail when other date formats are tried. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that the coma and point would block the bots from recognising the date? And if so, couldn't this be corrected? 5678 THE 4329 (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height
Since closure was requested at WP:ANRFC, here I am. I see no clear consensus for any change arising from this discussion. If I might be permitted to share my own thoughts, I would suggest that issues with signatures are best handled with common sense rather than over-proliferation of rules. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC) This discussion was officially turned into an RfC on request 19:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC) There was a recent discussion on the now archived User talk:Wllm/Archive 1 that got me thinking and wondering. We instruct users to "avoid" markup which will increase the font size of the text of their signature supposedly just because it will change the height of that line, but we instruct them to only be "sparing" with or  which also increases the line height, and in some case more than just the amount that would be changed by increasing the size by one font size. This is inconsistent and confusing, and I suggest that we make a change one way or the other in order to make it a little more consistent. Either we should instruct them to avoid markup that makes the text of their signature more than two font sizes larger (115%), avoid markup that makes their font size larger because it gives undue weight to their comment, avoid the use of or  (instead of use it sparingly), or allow use of only one of  or  (but not both). Some examples of the line height changes:

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of text with a undefined in it. This is a line of text with a undefined in it.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of text with a undefined in it. This is a line of text with a undefined in it.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of text with a undefinedundefined in it. This is a line of text with a undefinedundefined in it.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of text that is one font size larger. This is a line of text that is one font size larger.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of text that is two font sizes larger. This is a line of text that is two font sizes larger.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text. This is a line of normal text.

Based on the comparison in the collapsed section above, using my developer console, in the vector skin, undefined, undefined, one size larger, and two sizes larger all have exactly the same line-height of 18.4833px. So, do we really need to have this in our policy or is it just policy CREEP? I also notice that we are prohibiting the use of line breaks, I'm wondering why that is, wouldn't it be a good thing to add a forced linebreak to the end of your signature so if the next person forgot to indent, posted with a script that didn't always indent, lead a post with a template they expected to indent, or whatnot the start of their post wouldn't end up smashed up in the tail end of your signature? I also think that it should be okay to use a fully protected template like Nowrap which would reduce the need for people having a half dozen different &amp;nbsp; in there and would help support the idea of keeping signatures on one line. The objection in the no templates section is that signatures could become disruptive if someone vandalizes the template, well if it is a fully protected template, such as Nowrap (or the redirect to it of J), then any such vandalism would end up in someone becoming desysoped and would be a much larger issue. If I was to make a suggestion for an adjustment to the wording it might be to change the section to read as:
 * Avoid markup which enlarges text more than two font sizes (~135%) as this gives your signature undue weight in the discussion.
 * Avoid markup which shrinks text more than two font sizes (~85%) as this makes your signature difficult to read.
 * Do not line breaks or horizontal rules ( or  or ), as they break the flow of text on the page.
 * The use of non-breaking spaces or the Nowrap template to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.
 * As some users have vision problems, be sparing with color. If you insist on using different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities.

What do you think of this change? I'll leave out the deprecated elements section, although, those signatures are very disruptive because since those elements are starting to be dropped from browsers, those signatures aren't showing. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BEANS, I like your suggestion of not using examples of wrong markup in the guideline. However, I would drop the "and is disruptive", especially as WP:DISRUPTIVE redirects to the rather off topic Disruptive editing. While stupid signatures annoy other editors, it is a bit of a stretch to say that overly large signatures on obscure talk pages disrupt the building of an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 65% as a min font size is way too small; MOS:FONTSIZE and MOS:ACCESS both say "In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Modified proposed replacement per and . — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (a crash resulted in a long delay between starting and posting this edit)
 * We have multiple issues being discussed. Thus, I have used bullets to identify where I have changed from one issue to the next.
 * Signatures can be disruptive: I disagree that it is a stretch to say that large signatures are disruptive. They can be disruptive. Here is an example at VPT where an overly large signature derailed the thread. It is unclear to me if the point brought up by  should be handled by just not linking "disruptive", or if it better to not have the text "and is disruptive". I see that the text as been removed between my starting this edit and posting it. Perhaps something like "and can be disruptive". Calling signatures potentially disruptive has been in the text for a long time, we should not arbitrarily remove it. However, I note that the current text says "often disrupt the way that surrounding text displays" rather than that it is disruptive.
 * Increased size: I believe the point of not permitting the use of larger fonts, etc. is to help prevent custom signatures from disrupting the discussion, and to help prevent the signature from adding weight to the contributions of editors using a custom signature. There appears to be a point beyond which we have historically not permitted signatures to go to call attention to themselves. One of those points is that larger text should not be used.
 * I don't see how we can consider restrictions on increased size which have been in the project page to be WP:CREEP.  We certainly should not change the project page to permit larger fonts without a widely published RfC. I understand that the above text was an attempt to accommodate the currently stated reason for the restriction, but that is not the only possible reason and such a change is not appropriate without demonstrated widespread consensus.
 * Smaller text: I would not eliminate the general statement of "Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read."
 * Line breaks: if such re permitted, there should be a specific statement that it is restricted to a single  . However, they should not be permitted at all.  Including one at the end of a signature displaces the time-stamp which is automatically added after the custom signature text. This is, again, a long standing (8+ year) restriction which should not be relaxed without an RfC.
 * I would leave that in and add something to the effect that text displayed at a size less than 85% of normal is automatically considered too small. This includes a size difference as a result of using superscript or subscript (i.e. changing to 85% small text and then using super or sub script is considered too small). In other words, the rule is that it should not be to small to read, and below 85% of normal size definitely considered to small, but other sizes might be considered small in some cases.
 * Templates: It is unclear to me if we want to permit using templates in any way other than by substitution. Again, doing so is a subject that should only be done with an appropriate RfC. However, it would be reasonable to suggest the use of.
 * &mdash; Makyen (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , some replies to your points. The existing wording is that large font sizes aren't allowed because the change the line height and "disrupt surrounding text" and this is blatantly false as demonstrated by my collapsed example section. The real reason is that they draw too much attention and are disruptive to the building of the encyclopedia. Such disruption is a block-able offense if the user refuses to correct the situation. Is the specific wording about "Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read." really necessary if we are saying you can't make it any smaller than 85% (which is large enough for near as many to read as 100% is)?  Wouldn't adding the specific verbiage be redundant and detract from the short and sweet conciseness? I hadn't even considered the timestamp, and have as such modified the proposal again to disallow line breaks.  Users making it subscript or superscript should be aware that this already reduces the size of the text to the 85% minimum.  As far as substituting in Nowrap goes, I find it entirely unnecessary and disruptive to force them to substitute that which could put them in violation of WP:SIGLEN when we want to encourage them to keep their signature on one line.  The six characters it takes to wrap the entire signature in J is much more productive than the 28 characters that would be used up by substituting it into . — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * nowrap: I, personally, don't have a problem with permitting the use of nowrap. At a minimum, the wording needs to state that this is an explicit exception to the general rule that templates should be substituted. Without such text, it makes the guideline internally inconsistent. However, permitting any templates is a change to a very long standing consensus which I hesitate to agree to without input indicating a larger consensus than those editors participating in this discussion.
 * Larger text: I agree that the stated reason for not permitting larger text is erroneous, as demonstrated. That does not validate changing the requirement. It would validate either removing the stated reason, or substituting our best guess as to the actual reason. You have identified an alternate valid reason. Why are you still proposing changing the requirement?
 * Smaller text Yes, it is better to start with the general statement rather than have the number which a few editors have come up with on this talk page be the only qualifier. It was not my intent to suggest the specific text I mentioned regarding super and sub scripts be included. However, after thinking about it, something along the lines to make it clear that any combination of size reductions which reduce the displayed size to less than 85% of base is considered too small. Obviously, someone using sub and super script should know that it will reduce the text size even further.  However, we all know that there are people out there who will make the argument that the guideline says 85% and talks about sub/superscript but does not state that the combination is not permitted makes it OK to use both.  Having to cover more corner cases is one of the consequences of going from general to specific wording.
 * Removing restriction on sub/supersctipt: I disagree that the suggestion that editors should "be sparing" with their use should be removed. Again, this is a long standing restriction which should not be changed without wider consensus. This appears to be another area where you have demonstrated, in a very small set of circumstances, that the stated reason is not valid. You appear to have automatically assumed that this justifies changing the guideline to match the stated reason.  While demonstrating such can be an argument for change it does not justify changing it without seeking wide consensus.
 * This project page was viewed 79,588 times in the last 60 days. Assuming the rate has been constant over the last 8 years that results in 3,820,224 views over that period. Obviously, that number has lots of assumptions and can not be assumed to be the number of unique viewers. However, it should indicate that a wider consensus should be sought than 4 editors participating in a discussion on a talk page when changing long standing parts of the guideline. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re nowrap: Please do not use any templates in signatures, no exceptions. The reason we don't allow templates is that transclusion count, and post-include sizes (on large pages) would go through the roof.  14:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For such a use case, it could easily be rewritten in Lua eliminating the post-include size concern and since it would be an independent module for that specific purpose, transclusion count would be inconsequential. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting  in a  wrapper, like 's signature, eliminates the need to use the nowrap template. There are many templates that are merely wrappers for WP:CLASS assignments. —Telpardec  TALK  19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Abolishing custom signatures altogether would solve many problems, and cause none... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank for raising this topic for discussion. I support his proposal and oppose the idea presented by Floquenbeam. -  t u coxn \talk 22:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Decent idea, Floq, but not going to happen...anyways, I once had a sig with, , and , which did change text spacing somewhat. I think it was the tag - should not that be kept in, Technical? Ansh666 07:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , shouldn't be used at all in my opinion.  It is an unsupported, deprecated/obsolete HTML tag.  Details about this can be found on Village pump (proposals). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, then add that into the text! In the current text it's lumped in with the giant-text span tag, but your proposed changes don't mention it at all. Ansh666 11:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I did, then it was reverted... See the "Font" Deprecated? section just a few sections above. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , FYI... There are currently no articles with font tags. All articles with font tags were converted to span tags about a year ago.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that 65% is too small. I found the statement that you quoted a bit puzzling: For me, 11px is not smaller, but 110% of the base 10pt sans-serif font size that wikipedia serves up. For a good primer on font size problems (and more) see User experience feedback/Fonts Cheers. —Telpardec TALK  19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a number of sample texts in the See also section of the sup template page. My 10px high text becomes 8px high with that template – likewise the sub template. Smallsup is unreadable, not from vertical loss only, but also horizontal garble. All the numerical sub and superscripts are 8px. Overunderset is 7px, as is semisub. See also the documentation for the small template, which is an 85% reduction, but  is too small, about 70% on my monitor. On my setup, lines with superscript [like references] get shifted down 3px and the space between that line and the next is decreased by 2px. Very ugly.
 * Note that signatures are sometimes found in locations with a reduced text size, like the result box of the Archive top template, which has a default 88% fontsize from the transcluded quote box2 template. 85% of 88% is 74.8%, which rounds down to 7px from 10 px. The talk link in my signature is 85%, which rounds down, not up, and reduces the all-uppercase 10px high TALK to 8px TALK. All things considered, it does not seem wise to use pixels to specify sizes. I went ahead and removed "or 11px" from those other guide pages. HTH (Hope This Helps :) —Telpardec  TALK  19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that sentence: I was quoting verbatim from the two pages that I linked. The "or 11px" in that sentence was included after a discussion (it may even have been a RfC), so please revert yourself and obtain consensus to change it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you link that discussion so we can understand why that consensus was reached. Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 13. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion all reductions to font-size should be prohibited as well as the use of sup and sub tags, but I understand if others don't share that opinion. The issue with color-blindness is virtually irrelevant compared with people who have poor eyesight in general. In that regard we should also require a minimum amount of color contrast with signatures so that we don't have light-grey on dark-grey for example. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Different browsers calculate different font sizes for small(er) text elements like, and . I always wanted to make them uniform by harmonizing their size in Common.css, improving consistency between browsers.   10:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose changes to current policy. I was invited here via the RfC, and having read this discussion what strikes me is how excessively rule-bound some other contributors to the discussion are. I feel that existing policy, though vague, is about right. In particular, WP:SIGAPP is very clear: "Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors." That's really all that's needed, so long as we understand that "annoy" is not the same thing as "upset the aesthetic sensibilities of font- and type-setting- nerds". Wikipedia is concerned with content, and the job of a signature is to say who wrote or edited what, and then get out of the way. Common-sense is really all that's required, and adding rules is simply WP:CREEP. If someone's signature is really inconvenient to you, talk it over with them: most people are quite amenable to reason if you approach them politely, and since the only people who bother much about signatures are exactly the kinds of people who enjoy tinkering with fonts and typography anyway, they'll probably welcome the feedback and a further chance to show off their type-setting skills. If there is a real problem and the editor in question is being particularly unhelpful, there are well-defined procedures already in place to encourage more helpful behaviour.
 * The proposal above, and must of the discussion, looks like rule-making by a few to meet their particular preferences, for no obvious gain. It's very hard for me to believe that this is really a significant problem anyway: I've been an editor of Wikipedia for eight years, and in all that time I haven't encountered a single signature that causes me inconvenience or annoys me. I've certainly seen one or two that stand out, but I don't recall any that have been too big, too small, or annoying or inconvenient. I think we're OK the way things stand. RomanSpa (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Containing images on signatures
Does images apply on signatures that was allowed or strictly restricted for any reasons on Wikipedia? Uploaded and embedded images attach to users' signature can be exceeding 255 characters, so I would like to contain a logo image on my signature as well! I want Wikia applies on Wikipedia contains images on their signatures for users who used it the same going on the Call of Duty Wiki and My Little Pony Wiki! -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, a signature must contain only text—definitely no images. This project is focused on developing the encyclopedia, while Wikia has other objectives. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikia - Wikia is a toy, this is an encyclopedia. Wikia sites gets a few hundred views a day, we get that in a second.  The server draw is very different, and images are not, nor shall they be permitted  the panda ₯’  09:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've already been somewhat difficult regarding WP:SIG; I should point out that WP:SIGIMAGE is policy. If we weren't going to allow your use of templates, we're certainly not going to allow images instead. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why this isn't Wikia? On Wikia, the image that can be included to users' signatures was allowed however Wikipedia is different than Wikia because of it contains images that wasn't allowed here. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 10:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about specific images being not allowed, but more about images in general. Wikia pages can serve more images because they have fewer people looking at them. When more people are using the site, it goes slower and can't serve so much before it lags noticeably, so we need to cut down on things that don't further the project. Images in our signatures would allow more creativity, but they wouldn't really improve articles. —PC-XT+ 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible that several years from now, users will have the option of including an avatar. However, right now, the system isn't set up to handle this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, does including image on your signature may cause the server lag? -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's one of the possible many reasons why images are not and will not be permitted in signatures on the English Wikipedia. You have obtained your answer, and you are aware that they will never be permitted.  Why do you continued down this line of questioning?  Unlike Wikia, the intent of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia - this ridonc discussion is taking a lot of people away from that goal    the panda ₯’  08:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Exceeding 255+ characters in signatures
Just regarding to WP:SIGLEN, in response that their signatures that it exceed more than 255 characters after substituting it, should it be allowed or strictly prohibited on Wikipedia? -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A signature must not exceed 255 characters of code, no matter how it is produced. Your current signature is 254 characters. Please stop looking for loopholes to exploit in WP:SIGN. -- Red rose64 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To remember that why signatures should not exceed 256 or more characters (only less than 255 characters) on Wikipedia is limited to WP:SIGLEN? In their signature pages where substituting it on talk page, what they can sign is   or four tildes ( ~ ), however to look at the history why you can see your signature page size is: it should be less than 256 bytes in size. -- Allen  (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 04:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)