Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 9

Proposal: Disable and disqualify customised signatures
The purpose of signatures, according to this page, is to ''identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment and the date and time at which it was made.''

Use of fancy fonts, colours, shadows and other effects does absolutely nothing to advance this purpose. Rather, it draws additional attention to some editors over others, regardless of the merits of the points made. It serves no useful purpose, and seems to serve no function beyond "look what I can do!" and "I like this". Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to review the section above. In short; we just had this discussion. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note on section "Appearance and color"
One minor point to note on the otherwise benign and helpful hint given thus:

To display your signature in a different color for yourself only, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.css, replacing YOUR_NAME with your username:

#bodyContent a[title="User:YOUR_NAME"] { background-color: #ff7700; color: #ffffff; }

This code only seems to work after Special:Mypage has been created. The actual contents do not seem to matter; but the CSS simply does not take effect while ever this link is redlined. This is certainly the case with the current wikimedia software (right now on Wikipedia: 1.21wmf9 (891fb4c); Wikisource: 1.21wmf10 (ccb9700). Both affected.). Widux (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Different signatures, depending on the namespace
I thought I'd be more likely to get a useful response here than at the WP:Help desk, but if you want me to ask elsewhere, feel free:

I've seen signatures that change colors each time they're signed, or do similarly fancy things. Is there a method to make a signature change according to the namespace? What I'd like to do is to make a signature say " " at pages like RSN or at article talk pages, but " " only if the sig is on a  page. Is this feasible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically the logic you want is embodied in existing templates such as namespace detect; but beware limitations on signature length and rules regarding so-called "annoying" signatures. Hope this helps. MODCHK (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm actually hoping to make someone else's sig much less annoying. ;-)
 * User talk other doesn't seem to exist, but User other is close. But am I correct that this would have to be subst'd, and it would therefore spew the entire contents of that template into each and every sig on all pages?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we are supposed to be having a discussion here, but in essence I would suggest the signature might invoke a template (so definitely not a subst), and that template contain something akin to this part of User other (Thank you, I did not previously know that template existed!):


 * This approach means the actual signature invocation is short, as all the complicated stuff goes into the template. You should change the tag following ns: to the name of the namespace wish to detect; and replace "user" with "namespace matches" signature code; and "other" with signature for catch-all default case. The only advantage to namespace detect is you may go completely mad and code cases for lots of different matches, if that meets your intentions better.


 * Finally the template code itself doesn't have to be in the Template: namespace, so invoking something like User:WhatamIdoing/signature would work as well. (Obviously you would need to populate the referenced page with template wikitext.) MODCHK (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops. I got it wrong. The template is ALWAYS subst'd; so things need to move down a step (i.e. in example above User:WhatamIdoing/signature would hold the wikitext to launch the template; but only if Preferences option "Treat the above as wiki markup." is checked. Funnily enough, the current guidelines tell you not to do this, so my "solution" to your problem... isn't. Sorry! MODCHK (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Blinking and Other Signature Customizations.
I've recently encountered some debate regarding my signature and a single &bull; and I would like to discuss this. I feel that customization of signatures is a minor definition of self. I do not feel that text-decorations, used in moderation, are a negative thing. The key here is moderation, a single little dot separating the link to my contributions from my talk page is not extravagant and to be honest seems barely noticeable. There has been some discussion about it on my talk page, and I am reluctant to remove it at this time. I believe that if a person finds such a small moderation offensive or annoying, then they should do something on their end to remove the annoyance. I do not feel it is within their rights to force me to depersonalize myself to please them. I have offered ways for them to remove all blinking from their browsers, but would be happy to go into more detail if they so requested to remove "only" my one blinking dot. I am going to stop here before I begin rambling, for I am upset with the violation of my signature on talk pages and the attempt to make me remove my personal uniqueness. I encourage all to read the debate on my talk page and comment here, and will now simply sign this post and wait for responses. -- Technical 13  ( Contributions &bull; Message )   14:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am one of at least two users who have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Edittools&dir=prev&offset=20130304184445&limit=6&action=history attempted to clean] the above user's sig, only to be reverted again. It's only two days since . -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to draw a line somewhere, I'm sure you can understand that a signature with more prominent blinking features would be pretty annoying. I personally don't have a problem with the minor blinking element in your signature, and wouldn't raise it myself, but it does seem to be on the wrong side of the line the community has drawn. Monty  845  16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Technical_13, why on Earth would you want to have an online personality that annoys people? This is on par with those immature teenagers who dress like they're completely irresponsible, insist that their clothing is an expression of their true selves, and then complain that nobody ever trusts them or treats them like a responsible adult.  Every adult looks at this and says, "Yeah, well, your true self expression tells me that you're completely irresponsible, and I believed what you said about yourself."
 * I'm not going to tell you that you don't have a human right to act annoying (although we might insist that you do it on your own website), but why would you want to tell everyone that your self-expressed, unique personality is an annoying one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually I am fairly liberal in allowing people to use custom signatures that make them appear as stupid as they choose to. Blinking, however, is beyond the pale (I consider it to be rude). However, I would not mind if you write a custom CSS that makes your signature blink for those who want it (it must be off for anyone who is not logged in, not only for those who take active measures). —Kusma (t·c) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Straight from WP:SIG, including emphasis: Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. It think the guideline is clear enough: no blinking. That is the line. Please change your signature. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Monty, I agree, it is exceptionally minor. Personally to me, it is less annoying than trying to read a red font on a red background or a light gray subscript on a white background.  It is also quite annoying for those people that use non-standard characters that do not render in all browsers such as on User_talk:Anomie with the &#x26a1; or &#x2694; of which, by my understanding from a brief reading, instead of the creator of the bot being pushed to change his signature, everyone is suppose to download the correct font to make it display if they don't like the unicode square.
 * Point of matter:, , (MOST atrociously User:Hello_Link,  -- (Who is a site administrator) -- User_talk:98.16.72.18, and the lists go on...  They ALL use much more offensive blinking, and shouldn't administrators be forced to lead by example.  Can you really expect an occasional editor to comply with a guideline that your administration and super users do not? Yet, still my &bull; has been singled out for destruction?  This seems extreme to me, especially considering that there are 324 instances of text-decoration: blink; on the English Wikipedia. -- Technical 13   ( Contributions &bull; Message )  21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dunno why you're linking to blinkies on my user page, nothing says they can't be there. I also don't see the massive issue with blinking in my signature or why you keep generally bringing me up here but meh ¯\(°_o)/¯  Herro  Link 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes my sig includes red on red; or more precisely, dark red #a80000 on pale pink #ffeeee  which I carefully selected to meet WP:CONTRAST - if you use this tool, it comes out at: Brightness Difference 192.851; Colour Difference 563; Contrast Ratio 7.02 which is within WCAG 2 AAA, which is no worse than we require. I also contend that it does not violate any other part of WP:CUSTOMSIG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I restate again my purpose for this discussion: The purpose of this discussion is to change the current policy. So, continually pointing at the current policy is irrelevant pending the outcome of this discussion.  There are multiple options in my mind to settle this issue. The policy can be changed to:
 * Your signature CANNOT blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors.
 * Your signature should minimize any use of blinking, scrolling, or otherwise inconveniencing or annoying behaviors.
 * THEN offer up the methods that people can use if they feel that blinking "is beyond the pale" to remove blinking from their screens.
 * Help push through to allow only the people that want to see the behavior that option, off for everyone else.
 * Finally, a modification could be made to MediaWiki:Common.css and/or MediaWiki:Common.js by an administrator to disallow any of those behaviors on the wiki — period.
 * -- Technical 13  ( Contributions &bull; Message )  21:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind arguments about other things, visible blinking in signatures is disruptive regardless of the amount. Please remove it. -— Isarra ༆ 02:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And as for the argument that the guideline is unclear about this, it should not be - in the context of a guideline or policy, 'should not' implies 'cannot' such that while folks technically can do these things, to do so will only result in problems for them, and potentially even a block if such problems continue to inconvenience others. -— Isarra ༆ 02:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you make a point of "should" in the "guideline". When writing guidelines or policies, nothing is "assumed."  Everything in either is open to interpretation and both may be ignored completely without penalty. I direct your attention to the following sources:
 * Guideline
 * "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. Guidelines are not binding and are not enforced."
 * This one speaks for itself.
 * Policy
 * "Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome."
 * Key words: "differs", "merely", "desired", and "likely"
 * should
 * "3. (auxiliary) Will likely (become or do something); indicates that the subject of the sentence is likely to execute the sentence predicate."
 * Key word: "likely"
 * "(obligation): Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must, which indicates that the subject is required to execute the predicate."
 * Key word: "Contrast"
 * "(likely): Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must, which indicates that the subject certainly will execute the predicate."
 * Key word: "Contrast"
 * English_modal_verbs
 * "Should is often used to describe an expected or recommended behavior or circumstance."
 * Key word: "recommended"
 * From my thorough reading of the custom signature guidelines and policies on this wiki, having my preferred handle of ShoeMaker linking to my User:Technical_13 was confusing. I have modified it and added some JavaScript to my common.js to make it show ShoeMaker for me only.  That is fair and reasonable to me even though no-one pointed it out. — Technical 13   (Contributions &bull; Message) 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (annoying blinking removed). To make your life easier, I changed the "should" to "must". Hope that helps, —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted per Changing_policies_and_guidelines until such a time as a consensus is reached or resolution of ALL blinking has been dealt with — Technical 13  (Contributions &bull; Message) 19:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who else is currently using a blinking signature? You have not demonstrated any current use, only ancient examples. Nobody but you seems to want to currently use blinking. Consensus seems clear, I was only helping you by changing "should" to "must" so you can see it more easily. I have re-reverted you. —Kusma (t·c) 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with the change. And even though it is not a policy, it does not mean a guideline can be 'safely' ignored; the goal of this guideline is to avoid annoyance, not blinking per se. But the fact that several editors changed your signature proves that people were annoyed, and that is enough to "enforce" this guideline. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Edokter just said. -— Isarra ༆ 00:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I must go through all of the users in the 324 pages I will.. Let's start with Hello Link... I'll expand the list out tomorrow. — Technical 13  (Contributions &bull; Message) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be missing the point. There is no need for nor use in listing these users - if they are active and have problematic signatures, they will be asked to change theirs as well - they are not an argument for it being acceptable. The fact of the matter here is that several other users removed the blinking from your signature and/or have asked you to remove it as well. There is no good reason not to do so unless you are intentionally trying to irritate other editors, but while WhatamIdoing makes an interesting point on that topic, that is not a good reason - that is the sort of reason that gets people blocked. Or need I be less subtle? -— Isarra ༆ 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * requested the list claiming I am the "ONLY ONE" that currently wants to use blinking and using that as a justification for "consensus being clear." Now there are two people in this conversation that have blink in their signatures, so the consensus is no longer clear.  If there ends up being a clear consensus, and the guideline gets changed into a rule that Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. then I would be happy to change my signature.  However, EVERYONE should have to conform to this, not just me.  Things that inconvenience me are unicode characters that do not render in my browser, so  must remove the "&#x0F06;" as a talk page link.  Things that annoy me are linking text that is shorter than two full size characters.  This means that if you have a link that is entirely sup or sub or only one character long, that is annoying and you must fix it.  I also find using the same color for the foreground as the background as annoying; if you are in doubt if yours is annoying to me, then simply ask yourself if both fall into the same color using ROYGBV or B&W.  If your colors are the same, you must fix them.  Names without any spacing and are not camel-cased are annoying.  So, if your name is a string of multiple words, you must fix it.  Thank you for your cooperation, as I am sure you will comply with my requests to fix your signatures.  I would be happy to fix mine once I see some compliance and follow-through from the administration on these inconveniences and annoyances, as I wouldn't want to think anyone feels that being an administrator sets them above the guidelines or that this wiki is a dictatorship and not a democracy. — Technical 13   (Contributions &bull; Message) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please remove the blinking from your signature and find something useful to do on this wiki, or you may find yourself blocked for pointless trolling. You may start complaining about abusive admins now. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 14:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re . Please state exactly what the "inconveniences and annoyances" are in my signature. I hereby invite all others involved to state in what manner it violates WP:CUSTOMSIG; in my defence I offer my post of 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC) above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redrose64, "I also find using the same color for the foreground as the background as annoying; if you are in doubt if yours is annoying to me, then simply ask yourself if both fall into the same color using ROYGBV or B&W. If your colors are the same, you must fix them." — Technical 13  ( Contributions &bull; Message ) 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The colours are not the same. The hues are the same (0°) - but that is not the same concept at all. Although the saturation is also the same (100%) the crucial difference is in the lightness - 32.9% vs 96.7% - and that is where the contrast lies. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical, you appear to be very obstinate about this. The community has pretty much unanimously agreed that your signature is disruptive. Can you please alter it accordingly? It won't do any harm getting rid of it, and you'd be making everyone here much happier. Remember, Wikipedia is a community where we have to work together by establishing consensus: consensus seems to has decided that the project would be better off without blinking signatures. The sooner this situation is resolved, the sooner we can get back to what's important. –  Richard  BB  16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved on ANI; Technical_13 has agreed to remove the blink from his signature. As for other signatures that have come up, nobody here, including Redrose, has a signature with the same text and background colour, and anyone who does will be asked to resolve that. Meantime I am not going to change my signature; even without the character support, a block should be a perfectly usable link as tested with those browsers I have installed. And for usernames, please refer to the Username Policy. Thank you. -— Isarra ༆ 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isarra, it is not an issue of whether or not a block is a perfectly usable link. The issue is that it is annoying, disruptive, and inconvenient to me, another editor.  That being the case, please remove it per WP:SIG in which I quote: Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. -- Again, I ask you to please remove it. — Technical 13   ( Contributions &bull; Message ) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's false logic. You can't just say that something inconveniences you; you have to give a legitimate reason why it's an inconvenience. Note that all the examples of this given in the policy either change the formatting of the entire page in some way or make the signature illegible (through ill-matching colors that make a signature unreadable to colorblind people). A Unicode character, even if it fails to load, does none of these things. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason the these non-rendering little blocks are inconvenient is they make the signature illegible. When the character does not load, it requires extra work to find out what it is.  A visitor should be able to clearly define a link.  Unicode that fails to load (and even some of it that DOES load) should represent the link that it leads to as BWilkins has done with his talk link of "✉→". — Technical 13   ( Contributions &bull; Message ) 18:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The non-rendering little blocks are unavoidable even in some default signatures, for example for people who use WP:SUL and have a username written in the non-Latin script of their home wiki. They also have been allowed for a very long time, and if the current wording of the guideline page makes you think they are not allowed, maybe we need to reword the guideline page to make it better describe the actual practice. Anyway, thank you for removing the blinking. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that unicode that fails to load or does not represent the destination of the link is confusing as CUSTOMSIG specifies and should not be allowed.

Technical, stop being WP:POINTy. Your gripes about other people's signatures are unfounded and you are simply doing it out of spite. There is nothing confusing about unicode, whether or not it loads. –  Richard  BB  21:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard, contained in WP:NOTPOINTy is "As a rule, one engaging in 'POINTy' behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." I really agree and feel that unicode that fails to load OR does not clearly define what it is a link for WITHOUT having to mouse-over the link for a popup is an inconvenient annoyance.  You say there is nothing confusing or annoying about unicode characters that falsely represent what they link to (even if they load properly in the first place), I disagree.  I say that a dot that represents .0008791% of the pixels on my screen blinking in a color that has a contrast ratio of 3.6:1 and blends into the background as to be slightly visible that links to nothing is not annoying or inconvenient, you disagree. The correct resolution of both conflicts of opinion is tit for tat, I scratch your back and you scratch mine and everyone is happy or at very least equal. — Technical 13   ( Contributions &bull; Message ) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey wow, I was mentioned here as having a problematic signature, yet, as required, the complainant failed to come to me first so that I could advise them that nothing in my sig is non-compliant with WP:SIG. How uncivil and WP:POINTy.  Technical ... are you here to build an encyclopedia, or bitch and whine about not being able to flash in your signature?  If you wanna flash, do it in front of your mirror.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Technical, it is quite simple: The consensus is that the blinking is unacceptable. You've had your day in court, you lost.  If you don't remove the blinking, you should expect to be blocked for WP:IDHT / trolling / WP:NOTHERE.  If someone else won't, I will, as this has just become a huge waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Admitting that complaints here about others' signatures is "tit for tat" is quite obvious disruption. Recent spamming on Technical's part to advertise another Wiki isn't here, either - see Technical's contributions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, If you scroll up through the conversation you'll see that I removed my blink element more than 5 hours before your threat to block me.

Bwilkins, you apparently haven't read the dispute very well. My comments on your signature was not that it was problematic. "...should represent the link that it leads to as BWilkins has done with his talk link of '✉→'" was more of a praise for correctly using a unicode, for as I have stated: "I'm NOT saying all unicode is bad. I'm just saying that unicode that fails to load or does not represent the destination of the link is confusing as WP:CUSTOMSIG specifies."

JoeSperrazza, your comment is off-topic and does not belong here. My posts on those few user pages was an informative note voicing a little opinion. It was hardly an indiscriminate mass posting. I only posted my informative blurb on the half-dozen or so with a userbox on their page saying they were interested in the topic. Immediately upon learning that another user was offended by it, I made a good faith apology on that editors talk page. — Technical 13  ( Contributions &bull; Message ) 01:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, this has to stop. It's great to get the perspective of someone having little familiarity with Wikipedia, but many editors have now spent a considerable amount of time on this issue and there should not be any need for further discussion. No one has to agree with anything, but editors do have to collaborate, so would you please either say nothing here (and accept the situation for what it is), or make one last statement with what you want to say (and accept the situation for what it is). There is no need to correct any misunderstandings, just drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested on WP:SIG
I'm requesting clarification of the policy about Transclusion of templates (or other pages). In particular, the section seems contradicts itself:  Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as, for example) are forbidden. So, my question is: are they "forbidden" or "permissible but discouraged"? — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 17:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Substitution of templates in signatures is permissible but discouraged, as the substituted page may be vandalized without the user knowing. Users who choose to substitute their signature are asked to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign.
 * Substitution of templates in signatures is permissible but discouraged, as the substituted page may be vandalized without the user knowing. Users who choose to substitute their signature are asked to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign.
 * If you subst: the template (and any sub templates), and comply with the other signature guidelines, it should be permitted. Just remember that it still needs to be under 255 characters as it appears on the page, which wont be enforced by the software. Not knowing what exactly your planning to do with it, I can't promise there wont be objections, but in principle its permitted.  Monty  845  17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Transclusions are verboten (if I go and modify the template, it will update everywhere you have ever signed). Subst may be ok, again, as long as the overall sig after substing is a) less than 255 characters, and b) does not fail the other tests for annoyance, etc (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What if the template you're transcluding is (1) permanently full-protected and (2) not realistically going to change? Consider the Namespace detect templates:  several million transclusions, fully protected, zero chance of vandalism, zero chance of being deleted any time this century.  Why couldn't that template be transcluded (e.g., to produce a different sig for user talk pages vs article talk pages)?  The relevant risks for transcluding that page are dramatically lower than using an unprotected User:Example/Sig page in your sig.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The vandalism risk may be low, but there would be completely unnecessary extra server load (and slower page loading for everyone) caused by transcluding this. We don't really need our discussion pages loading as slow as articles do (imagine WP:ANI with hundreds of extra parser functions). —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This proposal is from who is the editor discussed at Blinking and Other Signature Customizations above. For some strange reason, the user's talk page is redirected to User talk:Technical 13/2013 where I have left a long rant (here) explaining that signatures at Wikipedia should not have confusing filling. Transclusions are not a good idea, but explaining why something should not be done is not the correct approach. Instead, it is up to the proposer to explain how signature transclusions would help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This has spilled over into User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 4. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only proposal here is to fix the contradictory wording that renders the section effectively useless and a root for an unneeded heated discussion. Either template substitution is allowed, or it is prohibited. The current wording says it it both, and that is not possible. I have no interest in substitution or transcluding any part of my signature at this time, but I would like the section to be clear one way or the other. As far as my talk redirecting to User talk:Technical 13/2013, that is the way that I like to do my talk page archival system, and I see no guidelines, policies, rules, regulations, or laws prohibiting it. If there is one, I am open to reading the documentation and learning something new. As far as the Blinking and Other Signature Customizations above discussion goes, if you look at it more clearly, I am the editor that initiated the discussion and set the parameters broad enough as to not discuss any one person in particular. — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Substitutions (where the content of the template is effectively pasted into the page source) are allowed but discouraged. Transclusions (where the template is included on the page using { {}}) are prohibited. I hope that clears things up. -— Isarra ༆ 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is all fine and good, would anyone object to the section being re-written as:


 * Substitutions of templates in signatures is permissible but discouraged, as the substituted page may be vandalized without the user knowing.
 * Users who choose to substitute their signature are required to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign.
 * Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as, for example) are forbidden for the following several reasons:
 * Certain automated scripts (bots) are used to automatically archive particularly active talk pages. These bots read the source of the talk page, but don't transclude templates, and so don't recognize the template as a signature.
 * Signature templates are vandalism targets, and will be forever, even if the user leaves the project.
 * Signature templates are a small but unnecessary drain on the servers. Transcluded signatures require extra processing—whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached.

Simple text signatures, which are stored along with the page content and use no more resources than the comments themselves, avoid these problems. — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF is all fine and good, and I should study the proposal on its merits and give a deliberation with no other consideration. However, it is hard to give more time to consider another proposal to change this perfectly acceptable guideline, and even harder when the proposal is above a signature saying Click to learn how to view this signature as intended. If this continues much longer someone will need to request assistance at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing remotely unclear about the current wording. The proposal makes it look like we actually allow templates, as opposed to the opposite, and is incredible scope creep.  This wording looks like a cross between third rate Web designer and a first rate policy wonk (note clearly: this is not directed at the OP, it's directed at the wording) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If it makes any difference, I would also not be opposed to:
 * Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as, for example) are forbidden for the following several reasons:
 * Certain automated scripts (bots) are used to automatically archive particularly active talk pages. These bots read the source of the talk page, but don't transclude templates, and so don't recognize the template as a signature.
 * Signature templates are vandalism targets, and will be forever, even if the user leaves the project.
 * Signature templates are a small but unnecessary drain on the servers. Transcluded signatures require extra processing—whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached.
 * Substitutions of templates in signatures is permissible but discouraged, as the substituted page may be vandalized without the user knowing.
 * Users who choose to substitute their signature are required to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign.

Simple text signatures, which are stored along with the page content and use no more resources than the comments themselves, avoid these problems. — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

first non european pope
Pope Francis I is not the first non european pope in history. just to start with Peter who was middle eastern and follows a long list of popes from either middle east or Africa .just take the reference from your own "list of popes". thank you to correct this as soon as possible. 194.126.31.7 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Rachid Ramy194.126.31.7 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the project page Signatures. Please state your concerns at the talk page for the article concerned. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"image" v "file"
by with an edit summary of PartRevert to revision 548464420 dated 2013-04-03 10:36:34 by NE Ent: do not use contractions; simply replacing "image" with "file" leads to non-sensical passages (files scale?); has use of (all) Unicode been discussed/condoned? (-dupl. & trailing blanks) makes me want to discuss it. I think the policy should be changed to "file" instead of "image" because "image" is non-inclusive. By using the word "image", you are basically giving permission to anyone that wants to be a troll to use videos, sounds, and pdf files (which could be an image and offer a loophole). I personally don't want to have to listen to the sound of a toilet flushing or a rooster crowing or some other obnoxious sound every time I load a page that Xxxx has signed. My position on unicode I've already stated in discussion above, so I've not much interest in discussing that again, but if others care to re-visit the idea I'm not opposed. Technical 13 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Atlantima and you propose a solution. Where is the problem? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought my lead in was clear. The current wording opens the door to conflict.  I'm sure when that section was initially worded, other file types weren't supported and couldn't have been an issue.  The file types allowed to be uploaded has expanded past images now and I think the policy should be broader in this regard to include those file types.  This will reduce the risk of there ever being a problem. Technical 13 (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We aren't saying there is a problem now. The proposed change simply preempts anyone from placing other files in their sig and saying "Hey, it's technically not against the rules". Technical is correct that my purpose in making the change was to include all files. -- Atlantima ~ ✿  ~ (talk ) 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Micheal's edit, because:
 * simpler/clearer is better (until the complex becomes necessary)
 * avoiding instruction creep is a major priority in our Help pages. They're labyrinthine already...
 * if anyone does start to wikilawyer about the exact wording used here, then common sense dictates giving them a trout and getting back to work. We should never make the system overcomplex, just to prevent WP:Point-WP:Gaming idiots (especially hypothetical ones!)
 * Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how changing the term "images" to "files" makes it more complex. -- Atlantima ~ ✿  ~ (talk ) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything, I think it makes it less complex to say all files instead of just images. Also, as a note, Currently there is a no consensus on this approval which is tending to make me think this "might" need an RfC so that more people can get involved and help find a consensus.  If no-one beats me to it, or this discussion doesn't seem to be moving in a couple more days, I'll draft up the "paperwork"... Technical 13 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Less than two days' discussion is not enough to declare a need for outside help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 13 April 2013 to 2 May 2013 is not two days by my calculations... Technical 13 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We appear to have three separate issues in the reversion:
 * 1) Michael prefers using the harsher "do not" to the informal "don't".
 * 2) Michael does not want to use the word file in any instance, because in one instance (image scaling) it is less sensible than image.
 * 3) Michael disagrees with this addition:  "As an alternative to images, you may include Unicode characters in your signature for decoration. However, depending on which characters you use, the result may not appear consistent to all users on all operating systems."

Here are my thoughts:
 * 1) I don't care.  Either works.
 * 2) I'd use file in every instance except the one, mostly because someone might include non-image files and because [[File: is the standard code.
 * 3) Using unicode decorations was approved in a long discussion a while ago, so including this is okay with me, but I don't really care.

What are your thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) If it's never been an actual problem, merely a hypothetical one... "If it's not broken, don't 'fix' it", seems appropriate.
 * Sounds do not autoplay, so you would never "have to listen to the sound of a toilet flushing or a rooster crowing". Ever.
 * If someone wanted to troll, there are far more efficient ways to do it.
 * If you want to improve signatures, by making them less offensive, then figure out how to discourage examples like these: User:Athaenara/Gallery. (Note: some editors have been trying to do so, for years. Unsuccessfully.)
 * However (post edit conflict): 1) I don't care. 2) suggested compromise seems fine. 3) if the old discussion can be linked, that'd be good. –Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As Quiddity pointed out: there is no problem that needs fixing, the proposal just adds to instruction creep, and some of the arguments are plainly wrong (auto play). However, if Atlantima and Technical 13 want to press ahead, I would no longer object to replace "Image" with "File" where it makes sense. The discussion above about the use of Unicode characters came to a much more restrictive conclusion and does not support the proposed text. Last, and least, I don't think Wikipedia guidelines should be exempt from our Manual of Style. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I didn't mean to cause a commotion with this. I figured changing it to say "no files in sigs" instead of "no images in sigs" would be uncontroversial. I added the bit about unicode because I see many users using unicode to decorate their signature, which seems like a sensible alternative to images, and so I figured that users who have just been told they can't use images might want to know that option. I thought my changes were improvements to the page, but clearly these changes rocked the boat a little too much. Sorry. -- Atlantima ~ ✿  ~ (talk ) 13:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Using redirects in signatures
It looks like there is a trend of people using shortcut redirects in their signatures so that they can fit more custom code in their signature. This causes several problems: Right now WP:SIGLINK says "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". However, it is ambiguous as to whether these links can consist of redirects or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It makes it impossible to find out the user's actual username without following the link (especially if the text of their signature doesn't match their username)
 * 2) It breaks user pop-ups
 * 3) It interferes with bots that depend on signatures actually containing the username (for example, bots that compile statistics on talk page participation)
 * 4) Now that usernames are unified, it is even harder than it used to be to find unique new usernames. Squatting on short usernames solely for the purpose of having a fancier signature only makes this worse.
 * I would say that the use of redirects violates WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Signatures like that should not occur. Let's clarify that "at least one internal link" means a direct link and not a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds like a good solution, but what's the best way to handle those who currently do use redirects? -— Isarra ༆ 03:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an unwritten rule of letting sleeping dogs lie, at least as far as established editors are concerned. However, if anyone knows of an editor with a redirect in their signature, perhaps they might be invited to contribute their thoughts here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. –Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree it can be somewhat confusing, I've seen cases where a really long username (lets use User:JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidt as an example) prevents them from having any custom signature at all. I think that it is unfair to them to not be allowed to create a redirect from a WP:DOPPELGÄNGER account of let's say User:JJJHS as long as they have both accounts.  For them it's the difference of 45 characters for a simple no frills signature:
 * JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidt (Special:Contributions/JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidt ⊕ talk)
 * JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidt (Special:Contributions/JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidt ⊕ talk)
 * For that matter, I think that the maximum username length permitted by the system is 255 characters which would create a signature of at least 797 characters by default with just the standard signature. I know it is an extreme example, but it is allowed and to say that a redirect wouldn't be allowed in this case (or even preferred) would be a catch-22.  There are 30 characters added to the default username (which is used 3 times) in a signature. That means that any username longer than 75 characters will violate the length rule by default.  With the merger coming up, our selection of usernames is getting smaller and it is not unreasonable to think that someone might want a longer than 75 character username such as "So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one?"  To summarize, I think redirects from registered alternate accounts should be allowed. Technical 13 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Usernames are limited to 40 characters. eg. JohnJacobJingleHimierSchmidtCharlesRobin is 40.
 * Custom signatures are limited to 255 characters. The piping trick can be used in your first example, further shortening it (the default sig just uses our username twice -  - not 3 times)
 * Therefor, I disagree that redirects in signatures are ever warranted.
 * And if someone used a 112 character long joke (or sentence), as a signature, they would be rightfully and thoroughly trouted, and forced to change it, again for reasons of Signatures.
 * HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fortunate that gesture would be done online, because I couldn't be around my mother if it happened in real life. XD So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not trying to pick on you there Wilhelmina Will, but the length of your signature on This list of signatures (most of which have horrible formatting and break all kinds of HTML rules and whatnot) . XD Technical 13 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, now my eyebrow is raised... is that where you picked it up from? So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * *twitch* I... I thought he was raising a hypothetical absurdity as an example. Why, why for the love of doG, must you force such a long blue link distraction on us?? There better be an actual joke behi... oh, I see. Well, here's your trout, Rainbow trout transparent.png, and whilst you're contemplating/consuming it, please find some citations for Bar joke, as punishment/reward. :P –Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, I've added the word 'direct' to the guidelines. I agree we should let sleeping dogs lie, but this should help address the issue for the future. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to Quiddity) This was the best I could find:, but I can't determine if this is a blog, which would not qualify as an RS, or not. It inspired me to check for sources from Oxford, but researching most of their content seems to require a subscription, which I am unable to do. Trout me, and then just trout me, till I can get my troutifaction! (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This guideline is going to be obsolete soon.
According to my understanding (someone please correct me if I am wrong), this policy will no longer mean anything and will be deletable before too much longer. Flow that is being pushed in here in the next couple months will disable custom signatures according to Jorm (MWF) in this thread. Technical 13 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Flow is initially for user talk pages only. There are many other types of page where posts should be signed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it may be possible to have some customization, like spelling out your name if your account name is a pseudonym (e.g., "Brandon" or "Jörmungandr" instead of Jorm), so there may still be some need for a revised version of this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Automated signatures
Why are users required to sign, why can't the server handle that petty management stuff ? This is something that new users have to be constantly attacked for or else they forget. Worse is with account-less users they are even less likely to want to invest in learning the rules, doesn't mean their comments don't matter. They are part of wikipedia's "long tail" of low activity users 69.172.94.73 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's impossible to automatically determine the difference between: an edit that requires a signature (such as your comment here), versus an edit that does not (any spelling corrections, fixing templates, fixing of thread-orders, adding banners, adding headers, etc etc). Only humans are smart enough to know the difference, hence, we have to manually sign. (If it were easy to fix, we would've done so, at some point in the last 12 years!) HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, when WP:Flow is created, the need to manually sign messages will go away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Related to this, we have a new template that might interest some of the regulars here. Add  to your user talk page if you'd like help spread the word about this future upgrade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there one for those against the idea? -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I don't remember seeing your name at any of the discussions; do you know anything about Flow?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Only what I've read here, at WP:VPT and a few other odd pages. I didn't realise that you had to contribute to something to be certain that it's a bad idea. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I humbly suggest reading my comment here? (because I think it's a good summary of a few overlapping/related issues) –Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not always. But it would not hurt to know your specific objections. Keφr 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly you don't have to contribute to a discussion to have an opinion. However, to have a valid opinion, you do need to know something about the subject, e.g., that it's not LiquidThreads (a mistake that multiple people have made).  I am very curious why you believe that it's a bad idea.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you won't be able to use templates, or other Wiki markup. I answer a lot of questions - not just at VPT - about why something doesn't work, or what the best way of doing something is: I illustrate my answers with Wiki markup. It also appears that nobody without the admin right will be able to alter other peoples posts - sometimes it is necessary to do that, legitamate reasons are at WP:TPO. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of those issues have been raised, and are being discussed. That's the whole point of feedback. Many of us have objected to not being able to fix small things in other people's comments, and options have been suggested (such as bundling the permission-flag with "rollback"). (but they keep getting suggested or complained about in various scattered locations, (because we don't have Flow yet), so everyone is continually off into small groups and isolated pockets... leading to misinformation for editors, and lack of feedback for developers...). Go raise your concerns at WT:Flow, Give some examples, See what the dev says. Influence his thinking, damnit! –Quiddity (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't been trying out VisualEditor. From what I've read (and of course I might be wrong), Flow will lose wikimarkup if/when it uses VisualEditor.  There is no (visible) wikimarkup in the VisualEditor.  Assuming that VE is reasonably successful, then editors won't need to use or understand wikimarkup any longer.
 * As for templates, if there's something that you need to be able to do and that isn't already listed in the MVP (minimum viable product) list for Flow, then please point it out. Several things that we currently do with "a template" might well be done some other, equally (or more) efficient way, but technically without "a template", but the usual cases like talkbacks, welcome templates, CSD notices and the like all seem to be on the list of critical features already.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, indeed I've not been trying out VisualEditor: but how do you know? Where is it logged? I do have reasons: apart from the negative stuff that I've seen at VPT and VisualEditor/Feedback‎ (I am one of the editors who often edits single sections, which is apparently not possible; I add infoboxes, which is apparently not possible; I add rows to tables, which is apparently not possible; I could go on), I have a long-held dislike of WYSIWYG editors, and if it's forced on me, I'm off. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that " (Tag: VisualEditor) " is used to flag the edits of the cognoscente on contribution and history pages. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * John's right. This shows yours (Redrose's); swap in my name to see the VE edits I've made.  VE is still in alpha, so it's getting new features a couple of times a month.  If you;re happy with the old editor and don't deal much with new users, then you may be happiest sticking with the old one for at least the next few months.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the tagfilter search needs lowercase for "visualeditor", not the Camelcase that is displayed inline in the contrib/watchlist/changes pages. All the current tags are listed at Special:Tags. –Quiddity (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

no link in my sig
Back in late 2007, I decided to start using the wikipedia handle FourTildes. I thought it was kind of cute. This has worked fine for years. But now, for some reason when I type four tildes (as in ~ four times) my signature still comes out with the UTC date and time, but it is no longer linked to my User page. This page tells me the signing protocol has not changed so what's up? Why did doing what I always do suddenly stop having the link to my User page? The only thing I can think of is that now, for some reason, having a handle that IS FourTildes has somehow confused things. Any help please? I am sure there are work arounds, but I still would like to know what has changed. FourTildes 02:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is me, the same person. I have dug up my old user name and password, unused since mid-2007 to try and see if the sig itself is the problem.  Let's see if the sig shows up properly.  Malnova (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm back as FourTildes, it would seem the problem is with my current sig itself, for whatever reason. Any ideas, advice are welcome.  FourTildes 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the first page of Special:Preferences and see if you've got custom code as your signature. You might just need to untick the box there, to fix it. –Quiddity (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Very anti-climactic, I must have checked that box inadvertantly. Thanks for giving me the heads up on that. FourTildes (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Shortcuts
I noticed there was no shortcut WP:SIGAPP, so I added one. I was advising an editor of an ureadable signature which so far has only been used once. True, it would have been simpler just to tell the editor the full address of the guideline. But now others can use the shortcut— <font color="Green">Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Length
My signature has, how bad is it? Is it a block-worthy offense? I am using it since August 18, 2012‎, nobody till yesterday complained about it. So is that margin of ″255 bytes″ a big deal? or is it leniently applied? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are five bullets at Signatures and no, it's not lenient. The only way that you can make your signature longer than 255 bytes is by using a template, which also goes against policy. As a first action, you should consider dropping the "New thread?" part, and then put the remaining 176 bytes directly into the Signature box at . -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Interproject links in signatures
In the "User name on another Wikimedia area" section at WP:HD (permalink), someone was advised to have a custom signature at Meta that included links to her userspace here. The advising editor noted that if done here, a signature linking a page on another project "might violate WP:SIG#EL, though that's really addressed to true external links". Is there a problem with such a link? For example, imagine that I'm active at de:wp and don't use English much; would it be okay for me to include a link to de:Benutzer:Nyttend in my signature? Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is bad style and should be avoided everywhere. What if I had wanted to look over your contributions here? I would have had to manually type your username into the address bar, because otherwise I would have got redirected to de:. And you could just as well leave a soft redirect on your user page — this has the advantage that if you had been to change your mind and become more active here, you could create a proper user page later, and existing signatures would have pointed to it. (Also, my script would have choked on these, but I guess nobody would have cared.) Keφr 21:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also of note: User:CMBJ set up their signature at Wiktionary to point to Wikipedia and got scolded for that (and for some other reasons), even though Wiktionary has no formal policy against it. I think the Wiktionary editor had a point there. Keφr 21:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Note: I've fixed the link in Nyttend's post, to point to the correct thread.)
 * There's 2 separate issues here: (1) Whether we can include a link to a sister-project in our sigs, (2) whether we can only provide a link to sister-project in our sigs. I'd say the first is permissible, and the second is not. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At both Commons ([//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steinsplitter&diff=prev&oldid=102385199 example]) and Meta ([//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-edittop.js&diff=prev&oldid=5687894 example]), my signature is essentially the default one, with the addition of a link to my userpage here - this being my primary Wikipedia. I've not had any complaints yet. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that interwiki links should be permitted, but that they should not count as the required WP:SIGLINK. As long as you also have the required internal link, no problem. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is this, as long as the signature otherwise satisfies WP:SIGLINK and doesn't violate WP:SIG, WP:SIGAPP, or WP:SIGLEN, then there should be no issue with it. Technical 13 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

About parser functions
I'm curious why it says parser functions aren't allowed in sigs. I'm not exactly a huge technocrat, but I would think that parser fuctions, being simple logic problems, wouldn't strain the servers much at all. I want to add a parser function to my signature. This is what I mean: – Ross Hill  is likely 02:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are some parser functions deemed "expensive" like, which cannot appear on a page too many times. Using a parser function for anything non-trivial is very likely to hit the signature length limit. And the example you gave here will not be useful unless the page on which the signature appears is frequently purged from caches, which does put some burden on the servers. Keφr 05:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yikes, the wikitext for the signature is:
 * Clever stuff can be useful, but please, not in a signature. Suppose someone reads this page in a week. Should the text they see depend on the time of day? That is, the signature might show "online" if the page is viewed at a certain time, but reading the page an hour later it might show "offline"? Even if the prediction is accurate, it does not seem sufficiently important to warrant changing the page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea was, it will always show whether I'm probably online. <font color="#088A08">Ross Hill (<font color="#088A08">talk ) 17:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't do something like this (though I think he subst's it)? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't do something like this (though I think he subst's it)? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Example
Hello there is a small type in this section, there is an "a" in the Ex@ample should be Ex@mple


 * If User:Example had set their signature to read

Ex@ample t@lk ,
 * Ex@mplet@lk 23:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

MajesticWriter (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done that edit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Date stamp format
Why does the display of dates in the time stamp not respect the reader's date format preference (Special:Preferences)? For example, users who prefer MDY format (e.g., 03:34, December 13, 2013) still see time stamps in DMY format (e.g., 03:34, 13 December 2013).

Some users have taken to formatting the time stamp in their own signatures manually to counter this, but this stops features such as the Comments in Local Time gadget (also activated in preferences) from working correctly and also creates inconsistency between the date formats on different users' signatures.

It would be great if the signatures automatically displayed the time in the reader's preferred format, which would also reduce the incidents of time stamp formats the system does not unrecognise. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 03:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How would that be possible? The servers need to cache displayed pages as there would be too much overhead involved in generating the html each time the page is viewed. At any rate, the glorious future awaits us with WP:FLOW which will remove all customized signatures wherever Flow is used, so suggestions regarding the date format might be taken up at its talk.
 * One reason for a consistent format that is the same for all users is that it is sometimes convenient to suggest that a particular comment at "03:34, 13 December 2013" should be seen. It is sometimes silly to put a diff when the wanted comment is a few paragraphs higher up the page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a nonstandard timestamp can also defeat bots, particularly archive bots. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Comments in Local Time gadget automatically changes the date/time to suit the reader's time zone and can be customised to change the date format, but it doesn't work on signatures that don't follow the standard format.
 * The problem arises where some users adopt their own format because the system won't let them have their preference (some users adamantly insist on using their on time stamp format despite these issues[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InedibleHulk&oldid=564861812#Testing_signature.][//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ezhiki#Date_in_signature]), and then all the signature date stamp formats (DMY, MDY, etc.) become inconsistent between users. Hopefully Flow will put an end to these issues and allow everyone to enjoy their own preferences.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to have an automatic feature allowing users to choose how they want dates to be displayed, but it was discontinued (partially, I think because it also provided unwanted automatic links to date and year). I don't think it ever was applied to signatures, though. Outside of article space, I would like to see that feature come back, actually. —Kusma (t·c) 13:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The date formatting feature (see also m:Help:Date formatting and linking) has not been available since MediaWiki 1.21 (October 2012). It is unlikely to return. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of Flow? I am pretty sure that allowing users to choose how they want dates to be displayed is already on the feature list. Discussion about desired features is at Wikipedia talk:Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this, but I would expect that would follow the reader's preferences for date format. In any event, this would make signatures redundant, wouldn't it?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It will make manually adding signatures obsolete -- the software will take care that automatically -- but every comment will still have a signature and date/time stamp. it will also prevent us from doing some things like forging another editor's signature of putting in a false time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it still allow the automatically added time stamps to follow the poster's format, or will this be set by the system (and presented according to the reader's preferences)? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 05:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With the current system, timestamps are stored in a particular format. For example, your post contains the following 29 ASCII characters: "05:40, 14 STOP THE BOTS December 2013 (UTC)". In theory, the software that displays the page could present it to you in any number of formats, but that's how it is stored.
 * Flow will store it in like this: "01010010101010111110111100110000". You will never see that string of ones and zeros, because Flow will convert it into whatever format you prefer. If you like ISO 8601 timestamps it will display "2013-12-14T05:40:00+00:00". If a significant number of users want it, it could display and allow you to enter JD 2456640.736111 (Julian day), 5774 Teveth 11 (Hebrew Calendar), yawm as-sabt, 1435 Safar 10 (Islamic Calendar), or Shanbeh 1392 Azar 23 (Persian Calendar). It will still be stored as 01010010101010111110111100110000. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as people can't override the Flow format with their customised signatures. (I added hidden text to your post, which displayed the "29 ASCII characters" to me as " "!)  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking whether you can override the Flow format is a bit like asking whether the highway bridges between LA and NY are strong enough for an airliner to make the trip. It would be technically correct to answer that there will be no problems with bridge collapses, but the real answer is "does not apply". Likewise it would be technically correct to answer that you can choose the format that is on your screen, but the real answer is is "does not apply" because there is no format to convert. Perhaps I can explain it better if I put it this way: consider the difference between format-store-reformat-display and store-format-display. If the timestamp isn't stored in any format and it only gets formatted after you retrieve it from storage, the whole concept of reformatting does not apply. If you go deep enough one could say that 01010010101010111110111100110000 is a 32-bit binary integer that represents the number of seconds since 00:00, 01 January 1970 (UTC) but I could also say that it is a bunch of magnetized regions on a spinning disk. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that users should not be able to circumvent the way Flow records the date stamp the way they can currently modify their date stamps so that the system cannot recognise them, and I understand from your responses that they will not as the date stamps will be recorded by the system rather than input by the user. It will presumably also prevent issues whereby you typing " " appears on my screen as " ".  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

symbols
Hello, I was wondering if keyboard character symbols are allowed in signatures (like hearts or triangles). I've noticed some users on this page have a symbol. --Turn685 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are ok. The principle is that a signature should avoid anything that is too distracting or irritating or unhelpful for a significant number of editors, and should not be too large or too small or too flashy, both in appearance and in the wikitext. Symbols are ok, but it is best if a signature also includes the user name. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that if your sig consists exclusively of symbols, it might be considered undesirable in a similar manner to a non-Latin sig. See also WP:NOSYMBOLS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see
 * User talk:Apokryltaros#Appropreateness of signature
 * and
 * User talk:Apokryltaros#Username
 * for an example of someone trying to enforce a username "policy" that does not exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, where exactly did I try to enforce anything, to my recilection I asked that a signature be changed because I found it confusing. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not just "ask that a signature be changed because you found it confusing". You told him that his signature violates WP:SIGFORGE, then later told him that his signature violates WP:SIGPROB. See Edit1 and Edit2. --Guy Macon (talk)

Promotion to policy
The opposers of this proposal claim that it would be "creep"; that upgrading these sections to policy is pointless, unnecessary, gives them undue importance; or that the issues it deals with are "not that important". "Creep" is avoided, in my opinion, by upgrading these specific sections rather than the whole page. It may be pointless or unnecessary to upgrade them, but these arguments do not suggest that there would be any damage to Wikipedia by doing so. To the argument about importance, that is a matter of opinion, but elevating three sections to policy status should not be seen as diminishing any guideline (or indeed policy), as policies and guidelines serve different purposes, and we do not have to have a hard limit on the number of either.

The supporters, on the other hand, point out that the section have widespread acceptance and thus are already de facto policy. They also point out that some editors believe that these sections' current status as "jut a guideline" means that it is acceptable to use a disruptive signature.

Thus, there is consensus to upgrade the sections on forgery, image use, and appearance & colour to policy status. I could have closed this purely on the numbers, but given that the opposes were not insubstantial and that new policy is not created every day, I felt it important to offer a full rationale. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose that several sections of this page be promoted to policy status, specifically SIG, SIG, and SIG. One reason is Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824 (and other similar cases) in which an editor is (or was at least) refusing to remove multiple images from a sig, possibly in part because this is "only a guideline". Some commentators in the ANI thread are urging that such action be treated more lightly because this is "only a guideline". Given the way wikipedia policy is generally formed, by use, this standard is so widely adhered to that it is a policy de facto and we might as well say so. Much the same applies to the two other sections I suggest as policy. Blinking sigs, especially, can cause actual harm (I have been present when one caused a seizure) and have no significant value to the project, and the reasons not to tolerate signature forgery are obvious, I would think. So let us mark these items as policy without further ado. DES (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support These are widely accepted practices. NE Ent 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The technical reasons convince me that there's no reason this shouldn't be a policy, and the (over-)reactions to someone violating it show me that the community is already acting as if this were a policy.  So we have a compelling reason for the change and consensus to make it.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Duh! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm all in favor of making this site more accessible to users with low-end equipment which cannot handle the demands placed upon them by complex signatures.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd support a policy that restricts signatures as suggested, but I don't think this debate should be sufficient to create new policy, because any arguments expressed here won't be sufficiently widely seen to determine the community's response. It would be better to start a formal Request for comment. - Pointillist (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw an announcement at VPP, so it is being advertised. There are more ideas at WP:PROPOSAL if anyone wants to do more.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now marked it as a formal RfC. Within minutes of creating it, i advertised on WP:VPP and WP:CENT. It was linked to from the relevant WP:ANI thread. Where else should it be advertised? I note that this isn't really crating new policy, as I propose no new wording, merely applying the "policy" tag to a "guideline" which is already being treated as policy by many. Arguably it weould be accweptable to simply WP:BOLDly tag it as policy based on use, but I prefer not to act like that, as per WP:PI. DES (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be also advertised on the Signatures page, next to the box that says "This page documents ... behavioral guideline ... a generally accepted standard", since that's what you propose to change? - Pointillist (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is normal to suggest changes to policy, guideline and other wikipedia namespace pages on their talk pages, and this is the talk page of Signatures. People intersted in possible or proposed changes who are lookign atr a project page are expected to look at that page's own talk page, i would think. But feel free to add a mention of this discussion whereever you think fit, . DES (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * However I have maked all the relevant sections with Under discussion with a link to this discussion, just now. DES (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Nice work - Pointillist (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, bordering on "What's the point?" If somebody thinks that "policy" is a magic word and "guidelines" can be ignored at will, then reëducate him. Nobody really goes around saying "Well, WP:Reliable sources is just a guideline, so I don't have to follow it". See WP:PGE. Also, sigs are pretty much going away when WP:Flow rolls out, because Flow's design is going to make blinking, imagine-containing, and forged sigs be technologically impossible (yay!), rather than merely a bad idea, so it seems kind of pointless to make a big stand on a page that may be obsolete next year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reeducate away [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=588882251&oldid=588881419]. Easier long run just to change the "guideline" word to "policy" -- that's the point. NE Ent 03:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment appears to be a correction of the errors made by a couple of people, including you, in calling it a policy. That editor was right, and s/he does not seem to be saying that the guideline should be ignored.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase "only a guideline" (emphasis added) seems to indicate a belief that guidelines are less binding than policies are. —David Levy 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't expect Flow to be accepted for general use in the next 24 months at a minimum. We can change policy to accomodate it when and if it is in place. DES (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support By jurisprudence it holds the same weight as policy, and has historically been policed as policy.  ES  &#38;L  00:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support promoting the three sections listed above to policy. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, a most logical and sensible proposal. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as a no-brainer. a13ean (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Should have been done long time ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't believe this is still listed as a guideline. It seems established and respected enough that it should be policy at this point. Plus it seems like common sense. Kaldari (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A lot of this stuff just isn't that important.  Yeah, a blinking signature is annoying, but... it's not the same as copyright violations and misrepresentation of sources.  It's just not.  There might be a good reason even to break the image restriction if, say, we're willing to protect up a character set to encourage participation by some rare minority group not yet in Unicode.  These things are guideline level, and a guideline this should remain. Wnt (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's just as important, if for different reasons. I don't think people need blinking signatures or images or other fancy features of HTML. It's a matter of signing someone's post on a page and figuring out who said what. It would help both people with low-end equipment (is this not the encyclopedia made by all people all people?) and people working behind the scenes at Labs. Plus, the way the guideline's written might as well be read as a policy. This is a technical issue, but just as important as the others you mention. When it comes down to it, I believe the technical side of things is the most basic level on which Wikipedia must function properly; this is another means to that end.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  05:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A blinking signature can do real physical harm, which is more than can be said of copyright infringement. Specifically it can trigger an epileptic seizure. I have been present on one such occasion, and the victim was unable to get out of bed for three days. That is not a trivial annoyance. DES (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually from a blinking signature, which is just a couple of words on a whole computer screen? I doubt it.  Photosensitive epilepsy normally requires the trigger fill most of the person's visual field.  A whole computer screen blinking could trigger it, or even half of a relatively large (or close) one, but two or three words is extremely unlikely.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be unusual, i couldn't say. I can testify that it occurred on at least one occasion, several years ago. The person affected was my wife, and I was there at the moment that it occurred. It may be that she is more easily triggered than most people with photosensitive epilepsy. Relive it or not, i will admit that I can't cite a published source for this incident. DES (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised to hear this - I would have thought the same as WhatamIdoing, though I should admit I don't have the expertise. However, and here's the main thing: if this is true, then what we would need to consider is if we want to have an overall no-blinking policy for all kinds of content, or better, a technical measure (such as a user script) that disables display of blinking and animation.  The guideline on signatures just isn't the right place for this, because it only governs a small percentage of the words on the page. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * People who know that they have photosensitive epilepsy take far more significant measures, because they need to block this problems on all websites and even normal computer operations or film. Commonly, they block all images and other risky features automatically (meaning:  if you know you have photosensitive epilepsy, then you don't need Wikipedia to do anything, because you're already doing it).  Also, it's a pretty heterogenous disorder, so one person might be triggered by a fast blink, another only by slow blinks, and a third person by non-blinking, high-contrast stripes (like a referee's shirt).  Many people are triggered only be certain colors.  However, normally it needs to be a significant part of the visual field.  That's why people who "can't" watch television due to photosensitive epilepsy can often watch TV if they are sitting fairly far back from a small screen in a well-lit room.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't have any especially strong feelings on the matter, but 1) I think policies should probably be about things that are really crucial to the encyclopedia. Signatures are important in its own way but as a non-contentious behavioural issue they would look odd, I think, amongst the rest of the list of policies. 2) Some parts of WP:SIG are more important than others. "Sign your posts" and "don't use other editors' signatures" are big deals and might belong as policies, but "don't use big text" and "be sparing with superscript" strike me as things best left as guidelines. 3) We've done alright so far without this being policy, haven't we? As others have said above, to an extent this seems like a solution in need of a real problem. 4) That's not to deny that problems arise, but aren't they usually symptomatic of bigger problems with conduct? If someone says "this is a guideline not a policy so I'm free to completely ignore it", the problem is that user's conduct, not that the guideline isn't a policy. (As far as WP:ANI is concerned, can we not just permaban confederate flag wavers on sight?) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some qualms over the wording were this to be made policy "Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." includes some hostages to fortune. What does one say to someone who insists that they find default uncustomised signatures annoying? But a better solution would be to reassess the technical side of this, and if for the sake of the server kitties we still need a ban on images in signatures then just change the code to disable that option. As for things like images, blinking and large text, surely that could and should be prevented by the software that allows you to change signatures in your user preferences?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Such technical restrictions were proposed back in 2006, i believe, but never implemented. I doubt we will get them implemented now, until/unless Flow is implemented. DES (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We can amend the wording of the problem phrase. I think the "annoy" part should only apply to signatures that have been customized, which is what I think it's trying to say.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  21:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose a blanket promotion. A lot of the stuff in the sig guideline is just not that important (see #2 above). Furthermore, going along with  above, the current guideline is written as a guideline not a policy. That is, it's closer to an amorphous standard than a set of bright line rules. Even though both policies and guidelines are both descriptive documents and vary, in theory, only in terms of their level of acceptance, I think it's fairly straightforward to conclude that policies are written differently from guidelines, and that the writing of the latter tends to be a lot less specific. And Wōdenhelm can be compelled to change his sig by means other than by promoting this to policy. All that said, I could support a sig policy if someone sat down and drafted an appropriate one, with the current guideline either being abrogated, or turned into a MOS chapter (since it would probably retain mostly stylistic concerns). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would point out that I proposed promoting only three sections. I could (or another editor could) do a draft of a page with just those sections in "policy format". Perhaps I should have done that first, I didn't think it would be needed. But I kn ow tha tchanging a propoisal after discussion has started often leads to problems. DES (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is needed to enforce the removal of obnoxious sigs, sure.  Sandstein   12:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Failure to comply with this is a slap in the face to the community, but as a guideline it is not enforceable, so a policy it must be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support As I understand it, one of the problems (for there are several) with images in signatures is similar to the case of templates within sigs: if a new version of the image is uploaded, every single page where that image appears will need rebuilding. There is of course a concern with the server load required to do that, just as there is over the download performance when a 4096-byte image takes 16 times as long to transmit as a 256-byte text string. But the point is that the hypothetical new version of the image might look completely different from the old, thus all of the signed posts containing this image change their appearance (and possibly their meaning), which is contrary to the idea of WP:TPO. File:Confederate Rebel Flag.svg is not protected - what if (Redacted) -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. I just did a word count and it was 4400, which is about the same as the original US Constitution.   And, as the plan is to do away with such vanity in WP:FLOW, it seems to be a big waste of time.  Andrew (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note thst I sugested promting three sections, not the entire page. These sections constitute 633 words, as the currntly exist. You might still oppose this, but please do make your asserions accurate. DES (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something else for self-appointed people to cry about. Oooh, someone has an image in their sig. Wah-wah-wah, this porridge is too hot.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * People already object to such, as per the ANI thread linked above, and IMO for good reason. The proposed promotion is merely to give those objections added teeth. DES (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and if the entire guideline doesn't make it into policy, a ban on images in signatures absolutely must, because it offers an easy way to vandalise and alter signatures. Nick (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seriously? We are making a policy on signatures? Isn't a guideline good enough? Leave policy for the big issues. But a users signature is not one of them. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on the simple basis that much of the community already considers it as a de facto policy. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessary because:
 * 1) We already have a policy for signatures: WP:IU explicitly states that it applies to signatures.
 * 2) Exactly how the WP:IU applies to signatures would then be the role of the guideline WP:SIG: recall that "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (WP:POLICY)
 * 3) A better solution than creating a new policy for signatures (or splitting WP:IU into "signature" and "username" sections) would simply be to edit either WP:IU or WP:SIG to contain language that covers that issue that started the problem in the first place (I confess I haven't followed the original issue in detail).
 * - Well-rested Talk  08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, I would suggest to merge the guideline into the existing policy because, if I understand you correctly, the guideline is basically a corollary of the policy, but since there are technical reasons why it must be enforced as opposed to merely ethical ones (e.g. transcluding images in signatures tends to make for unwieldy server loads), the guideline is in some ways redundant and in others necessary. Perhaps a small blurb about signatures that contains material that isn't already covered by previous headings on WP:IU (which still apply nonetheless)?  Lazy Bastard  Guy  16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems uncontentious to me benmoore 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a de facto policy, so we may as well make it a real one. I sympathise with the "policy is for the big issues" argument, but I really see no harm in cementing this guideline into our policy framework. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I would also add WP:SIG and WP:SIG, at least. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations more about the theoretical and real differences between policy and guidelines than about this being a good idea. There are other parts of this guideline which use terms such as "do not", "forbidden", and "must not" which are not being promoted to policy. Perhaps the thought here is that the absolute prohibitory nature of those statements avoids any argument between whether they are "just a guideline" or not, but if that is the case are we weakening them by not promoting them to policy along with the three sections in question here? For that reason, I believe that all of SIG should be included in this promotion to policy (which would include the sections mentioned by Od Mishehu, above, plus a couple more). Moreover, I have some reservations, though not enough to cause me to oppose its promotion, about SIG due to the open-ended and uncertain terms "otherwise inconvenience" and "be sparing" in that section; I'd recommend removing the "otherwise inconvenience" standard and the bullet point about subscript and superscript unless they can be expanded to be far more specific. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of the language in the guideline is very murky. In something that's supposed to be much more rigidly enforced I'd prefer to see something more concrete and less subject to debate (especially where it'll mostly be individual admins with fairly broad discretion enforcing it; I know lately I've been thinking Chevron a lot). I get the feeling the super/subscript line would be best expressed as "do not use nested levels of super- or subscript" (e.g.,, which renders as xy z ). The whole disruption of formatting issue is because one layer of superscript forces about a half-line margin above the line where it renders (and subscript the same below). Two levels looks like about 1 line or 3/4 of a line. I'm guessing 3 levels would be even bigger. Whether that's something to worry about... I honestly haven't ever seen anyone nesting sups or subs in their sigs. Anyway, I get your point about the strength of the wording of some of the clauses; it suggests that some parts of this page are policy while others are guidelines, kind of like the difference between "may", "should", and "shall". So perhaps there are portions of this that are "policy-worthy" and should be promoted. But on this, I still have reservations, but of a more philosophical nature with respect to policies and guidelines in general, and far beyond the scope of this discussion. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The idea that Wikipedia's guidelines are optional and may be ignored at will is fallacious (and I agree with WhatamIdoing that we should seek to dispel this notion), but irrespective of that issue, the guideline sections in question are routinely treated as policy (and should be designated as such). —David Levy 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Long overdue reflection of reality, which none of the weak arguments presented against thus far even come close to refuting. —  Scott  •  talk  14:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Time spent arguing about signatures is totally wasted, yet obnoxious signatures are irritating to many in the community. Making this a policy removes the "but it's just a guideline" red herring. It would be useful to spell out that WP:SIG does not give a right to be obnoxious about an obnoxious signature—gentle persuasion please. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Signatures do come up often at ANI. It is hard to imagine someone getting away with signature forgery for very long, so, it is worth promoting that to policy so that people are aware of the seriousness. The other items seem obvious enough to belong in policy as well. In the long term, one could imagine an interface that would prevent non-conformant (annoying) signatures from being created in the first place. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The ANI about Wōdenhelm's signature is now archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Don't see why not. It would make enforcement of these rules easier in practice by removing the "only a guideline" argument and would reflect the reality that most in the community have a low tolerance for disruptive signatures. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 06:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21 <font color="#666">Call me Hahc21 02:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because having sensible rules be "only guidelines" prevents administrative enforcement of abusive signatures (e.g., those that flash). If the guideline is upgraded to a policy, common sense can still be used in how strictly to enforce.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support obvious problems with images (etc.) are obvious.Martin[[File:Hammer-icon.gif]] 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose all except Signature Forgery Signature Forgery is literally the only thing on that list that would effect how someone edited, conducted themselves, and in general behaved on Wiki.   The rest should remain guidelines only, after all, none of them effect how you or any other editor follows policy and gets along here in the 'pedia (except signature forgery ) <font style="color:blue;background:white"> KoshVorlon .<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> We are all Kosh  18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, policy creep. Anything genuinely disruptive is already covered. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose in favor of flipping the switch to disable custom signatures all together in order to reduce the drama later when WP:FLOW rolls out. Can't we just kill custom signatures now and get it over with? Technical 13 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I might agree concerning images (for technical reasons, if nothing else), and signature forgery (violates of WP:AGF among other things), but I don't think the grouping appearance and colour with these as policy is appropriate. Even just reading Signatures suggests guideline to me. - jc37 07:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support all except Appearance and color - My signature breaks 2 rules on it so cant support something my signature fails on, Other than that It's a great idea!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Promoting anything in WP:SIGAPP after the line break rule. The rest is extremely vague, and doesn't need to be a policy. I'm not even sure if my signature violates the later part. Is my inclusion of a small subscript making it so small it is hard to read? Does it matter that the majority of my signature is normal sized, and only part of it is small and subscript? Is my use of subscript "sparing". Do I meet the color contrast requirement? Seems a lot of people use the primary color of my signature, but I don't actually know, and does it matter that part of my signature probably doesn't, but that the rest of it adequately identifies me? We really don't commonly enforce any of those points. On the other hand, we strongly enforce WP:SIGFORGE, the no-images rule, and the no blink/scroll rule, and so I don't have an objection to classifying them as policies, though having another page on the issue seems a bit like creep. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  05:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Except flashing epi-trigger stuff) ---What a great idea for a user name! (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly because except for outright impersonating someone else in bad faith, this isn't the kind of stuff that needs to be elevated to the highest level of importance in the vast jungle of wiki policies and guidelines. (And unlike most people opining above, I've never even used a customized signature...) Also, the lead of this page says "Signing your posts on talk pages, both for the article and non-article namespaces, is good practice, [...] " Are you proposing to change it to "Signing your posts on talk pages is mandatory or else you will be blocked immediately?" I think not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The de facto policy may as well become actual policy. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Sick of colourful signatures and especially those with various wiz-bangs, symbols, and other junk. Individuality is one thing, but usually, from what I've seen, it's usually a sign of a user I'd rather avoid. Like belligerent 13-year olds with cheetos-dust-stained fingers. Should have nipped this in the f&#@*n bud years ago.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh &mdash; Let's be honest: if someone has a batshit insane signature&mdash;and trust me, I've seen a few&mdash;then we'll basically take action regardless of whether this is labeled as a "policy" or "guideline." It's just common sense that some other policy (e.g., WP:POINT) will cover WP:DICK-ish behavior, and if someone says "it's only a guideline!" the obvious response is "ok, so if you're going to IAR on this violation to the guideline, exactly how is (whatever you're doing) benefiting the encyclopedia by ignoring it?" The only things that might be good as policies are the two things my bot demands (for good reason):  1. a link back to the user in some form (why: usability/noob-friendly, common interface, obvious first step in dispute resolution, don't have to read the signature to know who left it, etc); and 2. A parse-able datestamp (why: common interface, archive bots and humans dealing with and/or closing discussions). Everything else is realistically common sense that a good ol' fashioned WP:ANI thread or some Rouge-ness will quickly resolve if someone continues to be a dick despite people's objections. Plus, it's easy to spot troublemakers when they're making themselves obvious. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Is it really that distracting? Then what's next? Non Admin observation template is too small to read? Should we make it bigger? Sorry but I don't see the importance of this RFC. AldNon Ucallin?☎ 22:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Reason given by proposer is a good one. APerson (talk!) 04:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support . Long time overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Enforcing the no-templates provision in this guideline
I have tried discussion with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2014_January_18&diff=591363710&oldid=591350617 this user] with no avail. how do I escalate this? Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you told them about WP:SIG? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, the thread is on the user's talk page. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Left another note for editor -- maybe second time will be the charm. NE Ent 23:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say that I think both of your notes were a little BITEy and I've taken it upon myself to try and leave a more friendly message offering an acceptable alternative and offering my time to tweak their signature further. Perhaps that will work better.  Technical 13 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and it continues [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_31&diff=prev&oldid=593231850 here]. ANI seems a bit much, but apparently the friendly suggestion didn't do it. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. NE Ent 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)