Protected edit request on 13 July 2016Edit

I find a part of the current language unnecessarily convoluted. Please replace

If checked, the above markup will be used for your name when you sign with ~~~ or ~~~~; including any Wiki markup, links, or other valid formatting that it includes.

with

If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup, including any wikicode or formatting.

Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 01:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: that doesn't really tell an editor that this will be their "name" , just that it will be "inserted". Perhaps something about including a markup to your page should be in there too? — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the text needs to mention an editor's name, as the signature text really isn't their name - it's pretty much their signature. Should we mention that maybe it'll be inserted in the place of their name? Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Making it clear that it is in place of the username is good for newer users; I was referring to the part of the signature guidelines (that newer editors are less likely to read despite the link) that "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." - Perhaps this should be a different line. I've seen new users that end up sining like this: —MyNickname 04:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disabled request while discussion continues — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then:

If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup in place of your username, including any wikicode or formatting.

Also, right after the bolded text:

Your signature must link to your user page or your user talk page, but linking to both is recommended.

Xaosflux, what do you think about this one? Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 03:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I incorporated your change, and made a few other tweaks - see below. What do you think? — xaosflux Talk 13:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

SamplesEdit

............Current version............

Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page. If checked, the above markup will be used for your name when you sign with ~~~ or ~~~~; including any Wiki markup, links, or other valid formatting that it includes.
Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline.
Also, if you are going to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; it can otherwise cause templates to fail.

............New version............

Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page.
If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup in place of your username, including any wikicode or formatting. Custom signatures should link to your user page or your user talk page.
Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline.
Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; it can otherwise cause templates to fail.

Sure, looks good to me! Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Reactivated, so that this edit request can be responded to. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  Donexaosflux Talk 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Enterprisey and Xaosflux: Can we change "Custom signatures should link to" to "Custom signatures must link to"? See Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Link_required.3F. --NeilN talk to me 20:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SIGLINK is not a policy, so the "must" is pretty strong here, also there is an "or" in that guideline that a link to Special:Contributions is also allowed to be the only link. — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, we need to add the contrib link option. As for "must" - "the lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." In practice, editors are going to get blocked if they refuse to add a link. --NeilN talk to me 01:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Most editors do provide one or more of those three, and it's hard to see why you wouldn't except for inexperience on the wiki and/or deliberate disruption. This is just to help those in the inexperience category after several incidents. I think the must is very helpful for these, and justified by the existing guideline... and if not, we should tweak the guideline too. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The inexperienced are the ones that complain that SineBot (talk · contribs) keeps on signing their posts even when these users claim that they had signed. SineBot checks for the presence of any one or more of three items - user page link, talk link, or contribs link; and the absence of all three is what fires a SineBot edit. Since SineBot is happy if only a contribs link is present, I don't see why we should require the presence of one of the others as well. The point is that a post should be easily attributable without checking the page history; the contribs link satisfies that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! But do we agree that the must is appropriate for the requirement to have at least one of them? That's the important thing. At least one of the three must be present. And clearly identifiable, as IEHeyeball is sometimes not as clever as SineBot.
I'd recommend at least the talk page, and preferably all three... but I don't want to force you and NeilN to change, that's not the point at all. So agree that must is too strong there. How can it be better phrased?
Or if it's a choice between saying must have one and should probably have all three, I'd definitely go with the must have one. That is of course compatible with SineBot, and may even help the aforementioned innocents who complain they've signed their posts but have still offended SineBot to understand, whereas if they're just told it's a good idea they may have cause for complaint when SineBot has other ideas on the matter.
Or in other words, I'm on SineBot's side in this! (;-> Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Tog-fancysig" page.