Example:
Use {{sig|WikiaWang}}:
WikiaWang
( talk
)
A consensus has been reached, and the template has been created.
My question is, where would we use this that would actually have an impact on functionality? Userlinks is particularly useful for anyone using the ANB, because anyone can quickly access the user’s contributions as needed, and it gives admins easy access to some tools they might need access to. Since ~~~~ already links to the Talk page of whoever’s signing, I’m not really sure what we’d use this for.
@Galactic-Radiance
I thought, you know, just to make things a bit easier. For example, if you were to add someone to a project, it would make things easier. However, would it work if I also put a timestamp behind it?
Why not just use the built-in signature, though? I’m just kind of confused on why it’s needed - it seems more intuitive to use the tildes than a template, especially since the tildes will automatically sign your username without you having to specify it. In cases where you just want the link to the Talk page, you can just type the internal link to the Talk page and use the pipe to display the username instead. (And aside from projects not really being widely used, someone who wants to join a project would add their username and/or Talk link themselves, not have someone else add it for them.)
@Galactic-Radiance
I just thought it would make things easier to just create a template so that you can sign other people’s name too without typing up the whole link. I mean, won’t {{sig|Galactic Radiance}} be a bit simpler than [[User:Galactic Radiance|Galactic Radiance]] ([[User_talk:Galactic Radiance|talk]])? Also, i think it’s better if we cut down the time in typing up all the linking when we could just use a simple template.
I mean, then won’t this also apply to {{temp}}? You could also argue that we could just type <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:format|format]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> instead of {{temp|format}}, but won’t that make things harder?
What I think is that it will make things easier. I believe there’s no harm done if it’s made, but i’m not as experienced as a lot of people in the community, so it’s up to you!
Or I could just put ~~~~ and rest assured that the software will do its job
The difference between this and {{temp}}, that I see, is that there isn’t a feasible replacement for {{temp}} that doesn’t take a lot of extra effort to use (plus, {{temp}} is used for templates, which are more finicky with linking). With this, the tilde signature is already built into MediaWiki, so I just don’t really see a reason to have a template that does nearly the exact same thing. I could be wrong, maybe there’s a great use for this that I’m missing, but as it stands, I don’t really think it would benefit us as a community to make this template.
@Galactic_Radiance
I just believed that it would make things easier to link other user’s page and talk, not only yours. Of course, the ~~~~ works just fine, but i think you’ll have a hard time linking other user’s talk and user page.
I don’t often see a situation where someone needs to link to both someone else’s User and Talk page (with the exception of ANB reports, but we use {{userlinks}} for that already). I usually see people just linking to their User or Talk page, or even their Contributions page, but rarely a combination of those. Is there a situation you see often where this would be beneficial, or is it just an occasional thing?
I do not think this is going to get consensus (clarification: < this is my personal opinion). As Alex @Galactic-Radiance
already mentioned, we already have a template {{userlinks}} that links to the user page, user talk page, and a few admin tools that can be used.
I think this is an ok idea. Userlinks usually isn’t used for purposes other than ANB, and some other things may require this template, such as linking to someone for additional advice, and mentioning someone in your message.
This seems like a clean template that I would use form time to time, especially if I started guiding other users more.
^ Agreed. I support the creation of this template. It may not be used super
frequently, but I think it’s a neat and useful idea for when you do have the use for it.
I think this was premature. Also, there is no need to restate the reasoning Alex so ably presented.
If that is the case, I would suggest a different name. Sig kind of implies “signature” and can kind of be confusing. Maybe “u” or “un”? (“username” is already taken as a user template.)
And WRT what @Alabaster
said, that was my opinion. “I don’t think” kind of implies that. Opinions change sometimes, but I still do not see a clear purpose for such a template.
I’m a bit confused. Has a consensus been reached or not?
Let’s ask an admin… I did create a template without consensus a couple of weeks ago
… maybe we modify that template?
@JayneG
can you help evaluate consensus for this template?
I think that I can support this templates creation. I see where it can be useful on project pages where you want to add another user, it may also come in handy in some messages referring people to other users. It might also be useful for users who have a custom signature, but want to sign normally in certain circumstances. There may also be uses that others may come up with.
And to answer you question about consensus, according to the Policy Proposal Policy
, consensus is defined as: more than 65% support and no more than 15% oppose. I currently count 5 people approving of this proposal (WikiWang, Alabaster, HelperOnWikihow, FlowerPower, and Me) and 2 opposing (Galactic Radiance and Awesome Aasim [ @Awesome-Aasim
, are you opposing this template, or undecided? I counted you as opposed because of your comments above, but I’m not completely sure]) and it appears that there is nobody undecided/indifferent. Which comes out to 71% approve and 28% oppose and 0% undecided/indifferent, which does not meet the threshold for consensus.
Although, this is for policy proposals, not templates, there is no guideline or policy regarding the creation of templates, so I am using the policy proposal policies definition. Also @WikiWang
, you don’t have to close the proposal now if you think that more votes might come in, or that people may change their vote.
I am somewhat undecided. That is why I pinged @JayneG
to help evaluate consensus.
I can support the creation of this template, but I think the template name should be “u” or “un” instead of “sig” as “sig” may cause confusion.
I could get behind this based on some of the possible use case scenarios described in this thread, although I have to admit I think the usage might be minimal. Since this isn’t going to be used as a coaching talk page message or generally for use in the main or even discussion spaces, I don’t see much harm in having this available as an option for those that want to use it.
I think using sig as the template name makes logical sense as an abbreviation for signature.
I’ll wait a few more hours; if there’s no more opposing votes that come in, I’ll create the template.
