Talk:New requirements for user signatures/Help
Add topic| This page used the Structured Discussions extension to give structured discussions. It has since been converted to wikitext, so the content and history here are only an approximation of what was actually displayed at the time these comments were made. |
Contribs link formatting
[edit]@Jonesey95, @Izno, @AntiCompositeNumber, @anyone else: Does the formatting I've suggested for the contribs link in New requirements for user signatures/Help#No user links look approximately right to you? If there's a "normal" way, then I'd rather suggest that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Using "contributions" is the right choice, as "contribs" might be confusing to newer users. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I assume this page will be set for translation? Izno (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I assume that a few people will want to translate it, but we need to get it right first. I hate making translators correct my mistakes – such a waste of their time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"Or you can fix your signature"
[edit]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.
A lot of sections have "There are N ways to fix your signature. You can restore the default signature or fix your signature" which is a little confusing---the way to fix my signature is to fix my signature? I don't have a solution which is why I brought it here. My first thought is "There are N ways to stop receiving the error. You can restore...or fix your signature", but it still feels like "fix" is too vague. Thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
SUL
[edit]Wouldn't it be nice that for those users who have their preferences including (custom) sig at Meta to get this global as well so with e.g. a UserNameChange one does not have to change the SigWikiText in those prefs at all wikis, but only in Meta? Klaas `Z4␟` V: 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like that feature was requested in 2018, at phab:T188200. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok thx, I'll have a look there soon Klaas `Z4␟` V: 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Wtf?
[edit]Why can i not just edit the source and have to use some hair brained tool? And don't force users to change their signature: just support it. Don't pay some evil marketing agency for some stupid rebranding and spend the money on something usefu 2001:984:F34D:1:1C80:96EB:5362:FC76 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- l like developers. and why the f could i not complete that comment? 2001:984:F34D:1:1C80:96EB:5362:FC76 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- And why the f does the unified login not work? And why did it not warn me that I am editing anonymously, like all edit pages do normally? 2001:984:F34D:1:1C80:96EB:5362:FC76 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- This community chose this style for the default page type for discussions about five years ago.
- If you block "third-party cookies", then SUL doesn't work. The warning that you are logged out is a blue band that looks something like this image.
- Can you think of any good reason why bad HTML (e.g., unclosed tags that change the font for the rest of the page) and violations of common policy standards (e.g., a signature with no links) should be supported in software? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong error?
[edit]I just noticed this message to another user with the error "Your signature links to a different user account." However, the link in the signature belongs to the same user account. Is the error explanation just really badly written or was the message sent in error? Bdijkstra (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The two links in that signature,
[[Gebruiker:FakirNL/Ht]]and[[Overleg gebruiker:FakirNL/Ht]], lead to subpages of the editor's user and user talk pages. toolforge:signatures, the tool used to batch-check signatures, only checks that the link target exactly matches the username. It does not distinguish between subpages and other users. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC) - Okay so it is really badly written. Bdijkstra (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong user link, but intended
[edit]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.
Hello. My alternate account Ltrtst has a signature containing links to both user accounts, for transparency reasons. It is currently considered invalid according to the toolforge tool. Was this use case overlooked, or is it the expected behaviour?
I know I could “just” unlink the disallowed part, but it seems suboptimal. — Ltrlg (talk), 20:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The extraneous brackets are confusing the Wikitext parsing library into not considering
[[[Utilisateur:Ltrtst|Ltrtst]]]to be a wikilink. (Everything works correctly with them removed, example) The HTML entities are evaluated by MediaWiki after parsing, but I have to evaluate them before parsing. You can safely ignore this false positive. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC) - Great to know, thanks! — Ltrlg (talk), 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)