Forum:Rewrite of UN:SIG

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Rewrite of UN:SIG

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3887 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

A rewrite of UN:SIG is complete, at User:SPIKE/SIG, and your comments are welcome.

The information in UN:SIG is optional and is for Uncyclopedians who want to create a custom signature file to take the place of the default signature. (Some of this information is now in UN:SIG and some is in the Beginner's Guide, one section of which is automatically copypasted into UN:SIG using DPL. Neither document went into complete detail about how to customize the signature.)

The existing UN:SIG is rambling, poorly organized, and does a better job of wisecracking than communicating policy. It had a link that would open an edit window for a new signature file. The rewrite (in the green box) opens an edit window with a sample signature file and a header with technical instructions. (Unfortunately, there is no easy way to relieve the user of the need to manually type the user name.)

Policy implications

In the Vote For Sysop at the start of this year, two voters used signatures that advertised other websites in violation of the Wikia Terms of Use. This aspect of the Terms was clarified during VFS but was never written down anywhere someone would look for it. Admins have enforced this rule independently of whether the target website is or isn't a Wikia property; that is, whether or not it is technically a ToU violation, users are free to put on their user pages other ways to reach them, just not use their signatures to pepper talk pages with links off-site.

We also routinely advise new users that their customization should be in a signature file referenced in My preferences, not typed into My preferences itself. The latter alternative spits the actual wikicode into every location of a signature, which is annoying. This rule was likewise not written down anywhere.

Admin Simsilikesims reviewed this and added that we should state our policy against parody signatures and signatures that use the name of another Uncyclopedian.

Proposed outcome

The proposed document would replace UN:SIG entirely, except that Section 3 would be appended to the talk page of UN:SIG. The Beginner's Guide would be edited to point to UN:SIG for details on the signature. If you believe that Section 3 omits relevant changes, such comments are also welcome. Spıke Ѧ 15:27 30-Sep-13

Parody signatures

I wouldn't ban a user for using a parody signature. it would depend if it was construed to be funny rather than bullying. Admins should be able to take more stick than other users, like having a hide as thick as a Rhino - perhaps the look of one too. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:16, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't, and didn't; but when Anton199 was in his parody-signature phase, I did indeed reach into his userspace and delete his rendition of mine. In the great majority of cases I've seen, you don't get banned for violating UN:SIG but told to go read it. The gist of the rewrite is that, if you want to get users to do something, you write it down, and some stuff wasn't. I would indeed want to get them not to give the impression their posts are from other users, even if it's funny. Spıke Ѧ 22:23 30-Sep-13

Ok. I understand. For a Noob, that can be confusing - like the old 'username' joke - which I know some users (myself included) when they first saw it took it as a direct attack. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with the new sig scheme. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:09, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this annoyed you. In order not to confuse others, all my parody signatures are created in a file that tells they are parodies, like {User:Anton199/sig/Parody/SPIKE} Anton (talk) 18:29, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should amend the draft to say we ought not have to have "told the difference by close examination or by checking the Page History or by studying the filename." Most parody of others that is fine (and keeping from annoying me is not the point of this policy), but as Romartus mentions, it doesn't extend to possibly confusing newbies as to who is speaking. That is like one fallen-away Uncyclopedian who, on his web page, declares his right to alter the posts of others to signify his disapproval (and I will ban him if he does it again). Spıke Ѧ 18:45 9-Oct-13

The tone

As per policy and recommendations for new users...it's great. But it seems like ALL of the wise-cracking has been taken out...which I think is very extreme. HTBFANJS and the intro to uncyclopedia are both funny and informative. The funny element not only creates an atmosphere of fun and funny for new users, it also makes it easier to get though a large article full of policy. I'm sure there can be a middle path or at the very least a couple sentences that are in line with the rest of the wiki's intro pages. --ShabiDOO 23:00, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

A light approach is welcome in the Beginner's Guide, but the page in question is advanced information for users wanting to do an optional customization (which isn't easy to do correctly). I disagree that every document in a humor website has to be humorous, and it annoys me to go to a technical manual in search of specific information and have to pick out what I need from the fifth reading of the author's attempt to crack wise. But this article is not entirely deadpan; there is the bit about Uncyclopedians' big egos. Spıke Ѧ 12:49 2-Oct-13

If done well...an information page can easily tell someone how to do something efficiently as well as delight the reader. --ShabiDOO 20:16, October 9, 2013 (UTC)