Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 14 May 2013

Template:Not a help page Template:Active editnotice

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Signatures page itself, and Misplaced Pages's signature guidelines. To ask questions about how to use Misplaced Pages, see the Help desk. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk.

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 #Simplifying signatures 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 { 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 Misplaced Pages: 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 "Username (talk)" at pages like RSN or at article talk pages, but "Username (talk) Extra link" only if the sig is on a User talk: 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!):

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:User}}
    | user
    | other
    }}

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.

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

I've recently encountered some debate regarding my signature and a single • 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 • Message )   14:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am one of at least two users who have attempted to clean the above user's sig, only to be reverted again. It's only two days since this highly relevant discussion was archived. --Redrose64 (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. Monty₈₄₅ 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#Your_signature with the ⚡ or ⚔ 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: Walter Humala (talk · contribs), AjaxSmack (talk · contribs), Hello Link (talk · contribs) (MOST atrociously User:Hello_Link#And_lastly..., Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) -- (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 • 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 Misplaced Pages. -- Technical 13   ( Contributions • 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)/¯ HerroLink 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. --Redrose64 (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 Template:Bugzilla 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 • 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"
• wikt:should#Verb
  • "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#Shall_and_should
  • "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 • 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 Misplaced Pages: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 • 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 • 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)

Kusma (talk · contribs) 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 Isarra (talk · contribs) must remove the "༆" 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 • 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 this edit summary. 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. --Redrose64 (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 • 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. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 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 • 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 • 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 Misplaced Pages:CUSTOMSIG#Dealing_with_problem_signatures specifies and should not be allowed.

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 • 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)

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#Dealing_with_problem_signatures 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 • 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 Misplaced Pages, 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#NoTemplates

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 {{User:Name/sig}}, for example) are forbidden.

• ...
• 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.

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)

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. Monty₈₄₅ 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 Technical 13 (talk · contribs) 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 Misplaced Pages 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#Reversion of Misplaced Pages:Signatures. --Redrose64 (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 {{User:Name/sig}}, 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 {{User:Name/sig}}, 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)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the project page Misplaced Pages:Signatures. Please state your concerns at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"image" v "file"

This revision by Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs) 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:

1. simpler/clearer is better (until the complex becomes necessary)
2. avoiding instruction creep is a major priority in our Help pages. They're labyrinthine already...
3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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.

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)

I would say that the use of redirects violates WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. --Redrose64 (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 Misplaced Pages:Signatures#Length.

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)

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages