Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 142

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a follow-up to the

• A new user group is created called Event coordinators with the following rights: noratelimit (can create more than six accounts in a 24-hour period with Special:CreateAccount), ability to add group Confirmed users (See
  WP:CONFIRM
  ).
• This new user group will have the following requirements to be granted:
  • User must be auto-confirmed themselves
  • User must have a proven record of running successful Wikipedia editing events
  • User must have good understanding of key Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to article creation

Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support at Wikipedia:Account creator there is text about giving account creation rights to people coordinating events. Account creator userights include the right to make more than 6 accounts from one IP and also some odd rights related to account creation which can cause extra damage. For the sake of event coordinators organizing Wikipedia editing events, we need a userright to bypass the 6-account limit and which admins can grant freely to users who cannot be fully trusted with the extra privileges which come with account creator. This issue has been discussed for several years on the talk page of the account creator rights. In 2018 probably 100 accounts would need this event coordinator right and the use is likely to increase over time. Many people are uncomfortable with the account creator right being granted so freely to so many new users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not seeing how this is much differnt - yes this one doesn't have list override, but it still has wide open throttle override. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Striken then - I am expecting a solution which addresses the technical issue raised years ago, and which has been the focus of discussion since then. I just want new users to be able to create accounts to contribute someplace, and I would prefer to maintain status quo in other regards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Kaldari: have you seen the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Account creator - talking about event needs? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:ACTRIAL. Kaldari (talk
    ) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per SilkTork's oppose at the previous RfC, The most appropriate, manageable, and helpful route to creating new articles during an edit-a-thon is via the draft process. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC
  • The feedback that I've seen from actual event coordinators doesn't seem to support that conclusion. For example: "I don't know any edit-a-thon organizers using AW+Draft space at events, and personally I've never found AW to be super useful."[1] Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose granting account creators or event organizers the ability to make new users autoconfirmed. I've seen no evidence that these new users are better than other new users at creating new pages. New users should work in Draft. The event organizers can use their own accounts and judgement to move anything new into mainspace. That way if there are inappropraite moves we can discuss it with an established user. Or let AfC do it's job. New users should not be starting by creating new pages anyway - they shoudl learn on improving and expanding established articles. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an even worse idea. Even an experienced event-coordinator can't oversee all the new editors that show up, not that they would even want to. If anything, admins should be more careful who they give account creator to; we need not create a new user group to fix past errors in judgement. There's no reason to ameliorate the effects of ACTRIAL. All new editors should be going through AfC, no exceptions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support for a different reason Per Gnangarra's comments in the last RfC, The ability of an event coordinator to confirm other users would remove the very annoying and disruptive CAPTCHAs that come up constantly for non-autoconfirmed users. This by itself would immeasurably improve the experience for new editors at editing events. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment @
  talk
  ) 23:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments in the previous RfC, somewhere along the way we forget where we started and the mistakes we made. AfC is the problem,
  being bitten by that process is the biggest issue in editor retention and positive experiences by new users from workshops. Putting a time limit on being able to create accounts for event organisors would remove the issue of the tool being given to readily and not monitored. As we grow we have a habit of developing fiefdoms and power structures when maybe we should be reminding ourselves "Anyone can edit" and "Assume good faith" before a new process is created and ask are we hindering that. @Kaldari: is trying to address that and refine the previous rfc based on comments there, the opposes so far have raised nothing new they continue to be new user shouldnt be able to create articles not much AGF there. Projects like WikiWomen, Women in Science, Education and many other Wikibombs are specifically aimed at the creation of new content in areas where we lack coverage while at the same bringing in new editors. Either we start to address the concept that we truly want to share the sum of all knowledge and we want to address systemic bias and the cultural bias of editors or we choose to say stuff it this is a male dominated community and only the knowledge of interest to males matters. Gnangarra
  23:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the present system that hinders addressing any perceived systemic bias. Unless you have evidence that AfC enforces such bias? Allowing a bunch of avowedly single-purpose accounts to by-pass standard procedure on any grounds is surely not A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

the current system does hinder many people contributing, not every one learns the same way at the moment we have developed a processes that attracts only one style of learning, the workshops help to attract the majority of learning patterns dont fit into the jump in feet first basket. If we want to diversify the contributor base we need to ensure that there are are differing paths to come into the community and contribute productively. I heard all kinds of arguments put forward, but AFC has back logs and takes weeks to get past, we have backlogs of poor articles but the bar is set so high its actually contributing to those back logs, this proposal isnt about allowing anyone to bypass standard procedures.... Remember those standard procedures didnt exist when were at our peak in growth both in content and contributors the came in to address one issue and created others the end result was a drop in contributors, a drop in content expansion unlike sourcing/citation drive there hasnt been the impact we still get the problems. We keep standard procedures because we enjoy the power it gives us, but we lament the falling growth, and lack of diversity those standard procedures prevent while rejecting the idea that maybe we can do things differently or enable others to do things differently. Gnangarra 02:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

None of that addresses your claim re: systemic bias. And, FWIW, we introduced a tremendous amount of crap in the early growth years, eg: the copy/pastes from EB1911 and ODNB, from British Raj sources etc. We're still trying to clean that up. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Systemic bias is definitely a problem around both NPP and AFC. Here's why, as the subject has been researched. New pages and draft require reviewers to evaluate their suitability for Wikipedia guidelines, and many truly good and truly bad articles are easily processed. But the ones that get looked at but not reviewed, or not approved or rejected are typically (and here's the research on it) "time consuming judgment calls". And a key type of TCJC is articles that are "well-written but have questionable notability" (scroll up in the link to see that last term).

Well, that's exactly the kind of articles that edit-a-thons tend to produce. The explicit goal of many Edit-a-thons is to create Wikipedia pages on topics that are insufficiently covered on Wikipedia. Edit-a-thons are, by design, Countering Systemic Bias. These Edit-a-thons teach principles of notability to editors so that they don't created deletable pages, but they don't teach AfC and NPP reviewers how to effectively evaluate that notability for a subject that is chosen precisely because it's underrepresented in the popular imagination. Result: these articles are consigned to purgatory and edit-a-thon attendees learn that Wikipedia is a place where their hard work goes to die.

And we also have research showing us [the net effect of shunting users through AfC]: fewer lasting articles created by new users.--Carwil (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have little faith in anything said by people who are closely connected to the WMF. I've previously provided examples showing just how screwed up and incompetent such people can be when it comes to edit-a-thons etc; some are also arguably conflicted from a financial point of view. With a very few exceptions, people who are or have been involved with the WMF should be asked to stay well away from the editing side of this project. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral I supported the previous RfC as a measure of goodwill towards event coordinators who said they wanted this during conversations around ACTRIAL. I still don't see it as that big of a deal, but I also think the last RFC revealed that the community didn't want event participants to actually be exempted, and some appeared to be under the false impression that ACTRIAL was a permenant thing that had already been implemented, and were opposed to any exemption from it. Given both set of concerns raised by editathon coordinators and those who opposed the ability to confirm in general last time, I am neutral on this request, but thougut it appropriate to make it clear here since I have been heavily involved with the ACTRIAL conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: While this is slightly different, I'm not changing my stance from the previous RfC: One of the major objectives of ACTRIAL is to reduce the workload for reviewers and other maintenance workers. Last week an editathon in South Africa organised by the SA chapter and the Swedish embassy was publicised during a TV interview and received a high participation. Unfortunately, the facilitator was ill prepared for the unexpected high participation and a number of articles were produced in good faith but were totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It's a shame to have to delete these otherwise good faith efforts. Rather than making any changes to the User Group permissions, perhaps it would be more appropriate for editathon facilitators to teach their students how to edit by getting them to create their articles in their sandbox or or in the Draft namespace instead. Facilitators could them move suitable articles to mainspace for them.

I think that good preparation for an editathon should enlist an admin who will be present or online during the event. The recent editathon in South Africa went wrong. This does not instill confidence that event organisers are automatically any more qualified than anyone else. That said, I would like to invite the comments of RexxS, a highly experience editathon facilitator and qualified teacher and instructor who generally ensures that his editathon students make their creations in their sandboxes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a broader question of how much help we give to event organisers in general. I've faced a lot of unexpected problems at events over the years, and eventually you learn how to anticipate the commoner ones (e.g. have a spare laptop and AV cables available), but getting examples of good practice beforehand can help. To be honest, I dislike losing time in creating accounts on the day, so I strongly encourage participants to register an account at least four days before the event. That's the single easiest means of completely avoiding the non-confirmed problems. Sometimes you can't, so I try to catch participants before the event starts (maybe over coffee) and get them registered then without using up scheduled time and keeping a group waiting. Otherwise you need an assistant who knows how to use

WP:N, so ought not to be creating new articles until they are somewhat more experienced. In the rare cases where a new editor does have a notable subject with good sources, then I have no problem with doing any moves for them, if needed. I should say that the participant:instructor ratio really ought not to exceed around 12:1 (and half of that is better). It's always a good idea to have a capable assistant who is learning how to be an instructor anyway, as you can never be sure when you're going to be needed to solve an urgent problem, so the assistant can step-in to avoid "downtime". Anyway, my point is that I don't particularly need the ability to confirm new editors. It will be perfectly possible to run an event without it, even when ACTRIAL is running. It just means that some organisers may find that modifying how they work will yield better results. I'm always happy to talk through organising with folks who are uncertain. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or by wiki-mail, if I can help. --RexxS (talk

) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Though I don't do it exactly like RexxS does, my experience with running editathons as the Wikipedian in Residence of a museum is the same as his and, I too avoid the draftspace and encourage people to work in their sandboxes. While I'm not opposed, per se, to this proposal, neither do I have a need for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Kaladri, one specific point: just dealing with ratelimit does not solve the problem. Many school and some library and university websites have their ip blocked because of persistent abuse--the even coordinator also needs ip block exempt. This would be necessary also. More generally, we also need to provide for unofficial editathons. Anyone can run an editathon, and some satisfactory ones have been done without contacting us at all. (A good number of unsatisfactory ones have been done that way also). Obviously we cannot extend special privileges to those who don't know enough to ask for them, but we shouldn't pose too great difficulties either. Incidentally, I think must people who use the internet are accustomed to CPATCHAs in all sorts of situations--that doesn't bother me.

My experience in NYC is a special situation, unlike many places, we have sufficient experienced event leaders and administrators to deal with this problem for all events that ask us for assistance--even when there are multiple events on the same day. We need to keep the others in mind also. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

CAPTCHAs for every single edit are not disruptive? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 05:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: see Special:Captcha. CAPTCHA's are not required for every single edit at all. Even non-logged in users can make most edits without captchas. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, Special:Captcha is clear that "Unfortunately, this may inconvenience users with limited vision or using text-based or speech-based browsers. At the moment we do not have an audio alternative available." This is an accessibility barrier and needs to be resolved. In addition, making edits that add content require sources, most of which will be web-based and hence contain an external link that requires a CAPTCHA. I've had editathons where some well-prepared new editors actually were getting a CAPTCHA on every edit. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I had the same issue at a recent editathon, editors adding external links getting CAPTCHAs on nearly every edit. It actually ends up discouraging new users from adding sources, which is pretty much the last thing we want to do to new editors at an editathon. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 14:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It is significantly better if the CAPTCHA problem happens at an editathon (where a human can apologise) versus when a newbie is editing at home alone. We certainly should not discourage anyone from adding sources (but apparently we do). —Kusma (t·c) 12:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. So many things could go wrong. Positions could be seized by special interest groups etc. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: There are lots of good reasons to oppose but the userright should reduce special interest problems, not increase them. The WMF and other wiki sponsors already funds and encourages hundreds of annual editing events by special interest groups. Right now there is no system for tracking the connection between the sponsor and the wiki editing group, no way of tracking members of a collective editing team, and no way for the wiki community to capture the attention of every individual in a group to direct them to training or alert them to a group problem.

If you wish to counter wiki capture by groups, the place to address this is probably at the level of WMF policy, because so long as they are encouraging and funding this behavior, the problem cannot be addressed by avoiding action at the community level. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support the technical details can be discussed later, but I think this right will help clarify and centralise the discussion and management of event coordinators, by viewing them as a separate group. Overall in the right direction. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I still don't see the need for editathons to bypass ACTRIAL... just going to an editathon doesn't mean you're going to write quality articles that don't need review.. --
  to explain
  ) 13:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a misunderstanding here. Anyone can write an article in their userspace and then move it into mainspace without review. During ACTRIAL, it will simply mean that they have to wait four days before they can do that. It should be the case that the delay won't matter to an enthusiastic new editor who may work on an article for longer than that anyway; whereas the typical spammer will find it a barrier. The whole point is to decrease the number of unsuitable articles dropped directly into mainspace, not simply divert them into an ever-increasing queue at AfC. Being at an editathon certainly ought to mean that your work is reviewed there and then, by an experienced editor in person, before being moved into mainspace. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Commentary There is still a need for people to "make accounts" at editathons - and auto confirmation is primarily intended to stop vandals; ACTTRIAL actually raises the overall bar for "what autoconfirmed means" here - to me it means "brand new editors" should use drafts - not skip it because they are at a specific location. I don't think having inexperienced edits (such as the ones getting account creator access today) is the way to manage an event at all though. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is little more than an attempt at an end-run round the previous withdrawn proposal. It has similar problems, as I and others have documented elsewhere. In particular, I documented some specific instances of long-standing event co-ordinators and past/present WMF staff who made the most ridiculous errors. While errors can slip through anyway, I don't trust any carte blanche being given that might imply some sort of "supervote" regarding the quality of submissions etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

some AGF its not an end run around the previous withdrawn proposal, its the person taking on board the concerns and rethinking the proposal which is what we expect to happen as issues are identified, then addressed by to proponents until we find a solution to an obvious problem. Gnangarra 02:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not an "obvious problem" and, as someone else said above and I said on Kaldari's talk page prior to them mooting this proposal, Kaldari seems to have misread the consensus of the first proposal anyway. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• oppose i oppose this for the same reason i opposed the preceeding one. There is a misconception that new editors putting articles through AfC is any kind of bad thing. It isn't a bad thing. It should be the normal thing and i believe that one day it will the normal thing. Companies have orientation for new people; nobody starts driving without taking drivers ed first. It is not even a little kooky that brand new editors don't create new articles right away. This is just more backwards-thinking workarounds. If there is a desire to get immediate gratification for new editors, the coordinator can recruit an AfC reviewer to review on the fly. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

and we are suppose to be a community that anyone can edit and one that has no editorial oversight, yet AfC is both a preventing anyone from contributing new content and imposing editorial oversight on the contributions of others. Now telling event organisors that they need to seek out an approved AfC reviewer we might as well also change the name back to Nupedia or what was that other mob Citizendium or some such nonsense. Gnangarra 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community that is dedicated to building an encyclopedia for the benefit humankind, and has made much progress in that aspiration. All other considerations are subordinate to that. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC).

• Oppose, the Wikipedia experience for newbies at edit-a-thons should not be substantially different from that of other newbies. If ACTRIAL ends up breaking edit-a-thons, so be it (maybe we'll find out that ACTRIAL is a bad idea). —Kusma (t·c) 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in part: I think the user group/right should exist, but cannot agree with the "proven record of running successful Wikipedia editing events" criterion, since that's elitist and a barrier to getting things done. It verges on self-defeating, since it's people trying to organize such events who need the ability to do this. The cart is before the horse. You don't offer a useful tool only to those who've already proven they don't really need it to get the job done. There are other ways to weed out suspicious noobs from gaining potentially mischief-enabling power they shouldn't have.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, sounds like a terrible idea. There's no reason to imagine that just because a user shows up at an event their contributions are automatically better than any other user, and a policy to help them avoid scrutiny is wrong for so many reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  Actually after several years of editathons we can now say that editathon attendees are different from other newbies. A significant minority of newbies are vandals. I'm not aware of any editathon attendees who have had to be blocked as vandals - experience means we have good reason to believe that editathon attendees are much less likely to be vandals than other new editors. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Starblind. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is good for productivity of new users who receive training at edit-a-thons. (See my comments above.) See if it works on its own. If it doesn't, make the right revokable when a given distributor of user rights creates a cadre of problematic users.--Carwil (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposed user right is unnecessary. Per above votes, we already have "Draft" namespace if newly registered editors want to create new articles. Also, if they want to become Confirmed users, they should go to
  Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation if they find the AfC process problematic.

  I was going to raise the COI issue regarding this proposed user group, but then I saw one proposed rule saying that applicants should understand existing enWP rules, including the COI guideline, especially if they run edit-a-thons. Still, I don't think another user group is needed unless the community finds the rules to become Autoconfirmed too rigid. --George Ho (talk

  ) 19:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment — We need new AfC reviewers to deal with the influx of drafts that will come with ACTRIAL. the current situation (without the influx) is already a minor crisis: 1703 backlogged articles as of today.--Carwil (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pursuant to this discussion, I'm opening an RfC to hopefully gain consensus on the creation of a bot that will automatically date redlinks.

My idea is that, similar to how Template:Citation needed without specifying additional params will lead a bot to automatically date the template, a similar template be created to mark redlinks, which a bot (perhaps even the same bot) could then tag with the current month and year (if there's a way to forego the template and just have a bot detect and tag redlinks, even better). I feel it would be useful to be able to see, when editing an article, whether a redlink has been relatively newly-created, or has existed for some time, so that editors can make more informed decisions as to whether a redlink is really merited. Even if this was only applied to redlinks going forward (i.e. no searching through existing ones) I feel it would be an improvement over the current approach, where it can be difficult if not impossible to determine when a redlink was created.

The linked discussion includes some thoughts on indexing redlinks and more advanced functionality, but for the purposes of this RfC I would consider that out of scope. If others feel the advanced options should be pursued, I would encourage them to say so in any ensuing discussion, or initiate a subsequent RfC.

Please indicate your support or opposition for the creation of such a bot (and associated template if necessary), and feel free to bring up any questions or concerns in the discussion section. Thank you for your participation! DonIago (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey (bot/template for dating redlinks automagically)

• Support as proposer. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't see the problem this is solving. There is no deadline. How long a link is red is meaningless. Many will never be articles. None will instantly become articles just because of a date. They will become an article once someone with sufficient knowledge and desire decides to remedy the redlink. Having a bot traveling around and dating doesn't change that nor improve the experience for the reader. We could probably do a better job of making a list of red links that anyone can see, as many should probably be removed or converted into links to other articles or subsections, but dating them doesn't help that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with Dennis Brown. A redlink is not a flaw that needs fixing (like, say, the lack of a citation is). It's not a task in the
  WP:CHECKWIKI. —Tom Morris (talk
  ) 20:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no opposition to the more advanced functionality brought up at the original discussion, but those weren't my ideas, and I don't want to assume the responsibility of speaking to them as the RfC creator. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I note there are around 2,623,323 articles (i.e. mainspace, namespace 0) with at least one redlink. I have no way to easily determine how many of these are due to links in navigation templates or the like. Anomie⚔ 19:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles is not doing what is wanted, the solution would be to fix it. That link is one of three at Wikipedia:Red link#Lists of redlinks. However, there should not be more bot edits obscuring watchlists and adding bogus entries to complicate article history. At least, not unless a very strong benefit has been demonstrated. A script analyzing page dumps could work out what pages exist and which links are red. It could (if run monthly for a year or two) build a history showing when new red links were added. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how Most-wanted articles is relevant to my coming across a redlink in a film article, or such, and not knowing how recently the redlink was created? DonIago (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any value in knowing how long a red link has been there when editing an article. ie the proposer's rationale. The main one here is red links that really should be blue, but are not, usually because of misspelling or different disambiguation. (Similarly, the date on the "citation required" is of zero use so far as I know - if someone would care to enlighten me, that would be welcome.) However, there is a situations when the this might come in handy:
  • When a red link goes blue. I created an article today on the physicist John Corner. When I checked "What links here", an unexpected article came up. Julia Corner linked to it, but wanted the more famous (but apparently not on Wikipedia) 18th century engraver. I removed the red link; a disambiguation will be required and anyone writing about him will want to link to Julia, so this will be okay. The problem here is that the link goes blue without notifying anyone, so the change is easily missed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • To me, the value, as an editor, is that if I see a redlink that's been sitting around since 2010 or so, I feel reasonably justified in removing it on the grounds that it's unlikely to be de-redlinked anytime soon. OTOH, if the redlink was added a month ago, I'd be likely to leave it alone, reasoning (perhaps fallaciously, perhaps not) that there's a chance someone may write an appropriate article. I find the dates on CN tags useful for the same reason. If a CN tag has been in place for months/years, it's time to remove the challenged material. If it's a fairly recent tag, editors deserve more time to try to locate appropriate sourcing. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I'm not aware of any studies determining whether date-stamping is useful or not, so if it's a minimal effort, why not implement it? DonIago (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

      • Why would you want to remove a redlink based in it having existed for a long time? That is no indication of whether an article is needed.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

        • For the same reason I'd be more likely to delete uncited information that's been in an article for a long time. It is an indication that nothing's going to be done to resolve the underlying situation. Besides, a redlink in and of itself is also no indication of whether an article is needed. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Aa already explained, a redlink is not an "underlying situation" that needs to be resolved. This is a very bad idea. EEng 22:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• Proposal: Images of signatures in infoboxes have little or no encylopedic value, so all infoboxes which have signature fields should have them removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey (Removal of signature fields)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Tony (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• support --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Alex Shih^Talk 04:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Tony, basically. No reason to have it unless there is something actually notable about it, in which case write about it in the article, not the infobox. ansh666 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  Tony hasn't offered a rationale, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose such sweeping and unspecific guidelines. This would alter almost 90,000 pages and provide little to no guidance. Signatures such as those belonging to individuals signing historic documents (John Hancock, George Washington, and anyone else who can enact laws with their signature) and those belonging to famous artists are just some of the cases that require discretion that this proposal doesn't address. I'm not necessarily opposed to moving them out of the infobox and don't believe we should be including them for graphoanalysis, but just unilaterally removing them is problematic. Nihlus 05:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Given that an infobox is supposed to be a quick summary of a person's bio, I cannot see how a signature fits that. In the body, it can be used, but not infobox. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support --Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Very sensible proposal. Even without the concerns presented below, from a content-to-space ratio perspective it does not make sense to include the signature in the infobox. That is not useful overview information, and says nothing about the subject as the other fields in the infobox do. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose something so broadly constructed. My feeling is similar to Nihlus, I think. I completely get why we have signatures for American presidents, whose signatures are the instrument by which laws come into force. There are probably other good examples that are beyond my info horizon. But do we need Pedro Pascal's signature? No. So I would enthusiastically support this if it was construed more narrowly. A Train^talk 06:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Not key information about a person. Also can aid in attempting forgeries of documents (though that's not my principal objection, the content's irrelevance is).  Sandstein  07:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Notable, authentic signatures for non-BLPs can always be added directly into the article if necessary: removed from an infobox doen't equal can't be used anywhere, anytime.
  Fram (talk
  ) 08:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - Support omission as default per first sentence at
  MOS:INFOBOX - not a "key feature of the page's subject" in most cases. Omit signature from the infobox unless there is discussion-based consensus to include it. Oppose outright ban from the infobox. My approach would mean that a signature could be removed from any infobox without local discussion, based on this consensus, pending discussion-based consensus to include it. ―Mandruss ☎
  09:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose though I'd be open to prohibiting it for living persons who are non-public figures. This is actually fairly normal to see in short biographical articles off Wikipedia as well and does add encyclopedic value in my opinion. I'm particularly thinking of heads of state, heads of government, religious leaders, noted authors, etc. where their signature is publicly known and very much associated with who they are. As always, I appreciate BMK's efforts here, but unfortunately I cannot support this specific proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support There may be certain figures whose signature is relevant to their encyclopaedic value (someone mentioned presidents- good example, per thatthey sign off laws. Artists might be another, as they stick em at the bottom of their works on a regular basis). But the current position which is that since their is an IB parameter, it must be filled, even if the only way of doing so is to effectively forge the thing. Madness. This is completely unencyclopaedic behaviour. The use of signatures should be governed by our usual policies of
  velut luna
  12:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand the sentiment and a lot of signatures are superfluous for our needs, but this proposal is way too sweeping and would mean the deletion of many signatures that are worth keeping. If it was narrowed down to limiting signatures to a specific criteria that allows for case by case examination (ie: demonstration that the signature itself is important), I would be more open. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, oh come on, these are always interesting. Signatures and autographs carry a personal historical imprint. They directly link the reader with the page's subject. Consider the signatures as human touchstones, a work of art in themselves. To see Jeanne of Arc's signature, or that of Shakespeare, brings the topic more fully alive and real to many readers. Degas, Picasso, Dali, their signatures are part of what they are and how people "know" them. To see so many editors supporting this reminds me of the adage that too many rules eventually bring down what they are meant to hold up. Hopefully the closer will see keeping the signatures as worthwhile, and take the common sense reasons why they should be kept. This is a sad one, and I feel that if "passed" it will hurt the project more than help it, and I hope the nominator and support editors will reconsider. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support these signatures are really just a bit of decoration and add nothing of encyclopaedic value in the infobox. If the signature adds real value to the article for some reason there is no problem with including it in the main body of the article like any other information or image, subject to all the usual rules for inclusion, of course. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Privacy issues with live people. No encyclopedic benefit for (almost all) dead people. On the rare occasion it does merit attention in the article it can be explored in the body. I can see an argument that painters would deserve an exemption. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't object to a guideline on when to include signatures but there are many examples of signatures that are of encyclopedic value: Those of presidents, artists, writers etc. The infobox should be the place to have them because that is where people will expect and find them the easiest. Disallowing signatures from living people who are non-public figures as TonyBallioni suggests above for various reasons is not a reason to remove them alltogether. Readers expect to find Barack Obama's signature with the quick facts about him, not somewhere buried in the 330kb long article and we should not make it harder for readers to access information they look for. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - At least in the Western World, signatures are a central personal identifier, and I expect in many if not most cases, of an almost default encyclopedic relevance. In cases of living people, signatures may already be routinely removed for privacy reasons as a matter of courtesy, although I would be in favor of adding that specifically to
  WP:BLPPRIVACY. Other than that, this is just overkill. GMG^talk
  15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, they're usually copyvios anyway. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for BLPs Due to concern of privacy issues. When it comes to dead people, I'm going to proudly state that I like them. As noted by SoWhy above, some of these signatures are quite famous and quite notable. An all out removal is not going to work here. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I think you mean "Support for BLPs".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  I like dead people too, although I can't say I'm particularly proud of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per
  WP:NOTLAW. If we have ~90000 pages like this it's clearly our policy to do so. A handful of curmudgeons have no mandate to issue an diktat forbidding them. Andrew D. (talk
  ) 19:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  We had spoiler tags in an even higher proportion of articles, and both ethnicity and religion parameters in even more bio infoboxes, yet ditched those as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  Andy, do you think it's possible to state your oppose with more reasoning and less referral to those who have a different opinion as curmudgeons and their idea as a diktat? (I think you missed the point of this thread, but I may be mistaken.) ----Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support for BLPs, since they're a privacy problem. Most do appear to be copyvios, ripped from books or from websites that ripped them from books. Except for cases like John Hancock, they verge on trivia, but are harmless for deceased subjects when properly sourced and licensed. Should probably have instructions in the template documentation to not include one that's not properly licensed and not to include one just to include one but because it's unusually relevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Tending to oppose, as per Dennis and SOWHY; but also leaning to support for BLPs as per Stanton. For most authors they seem kind of irrelevant. Signatures of painters or other graphic artists might be more "useful", but I guess the copyright issues with those might be even more challenging? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the may have some encyclopedic value. but they are not basic factual information--especially as the one used may or may not be a representative sample. They are absolutely a privacy problem for BLPs--where they normally should not be used anywhere in the article except for the most public of figures, such as presidents, , and I am amazed we continue to use them. As for licensing so, I do not think there is copyright in a signature. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  @DGG: See commons:COM:SIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what we lose from having it. I do agree and I may support a more specific guideline for inclusion, such has holding a political office or something. But I feel the signature gives the user a sense of the style of person, much as their photo does.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - if someone forged a signiture using our digitized version, wouldn't that make us morally responsible for helping him/her do that? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; I agree with other users who say that for at least some persons, such as U.S. presidents and famous painters, their signatures are notable and important enough to be in the infobox. I also agree with other users who say that for persons who are not notable for signing stuff, their signatures don't belong in the infobox (or anywhere else in the article), and I would encourage editors to remove signatures from infoboxes about anyone not famous for signing stuff. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- These are sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. No need for a draconian rule like this. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose making a blanket rule about this. This can be discussed on a per article basis. (I also oppose the "rule" that if we have a signature, it must be included in the infobox). —Kusma (t·c) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - in most cases signatures are not encyclopedic, but I could see exceptions for political figures or famous artists. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose it should be up to the article's main author, or group of main collaborators, to decide, via the medium of a talk page discussion if necessary. There is no reason for a blanket ban. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, although guidelines about smaller display size would be reasonable. It's too strict to consider them as lacking in encyclopedic value. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has even added them before, I agree that this is really not one of the most basic overview facts that you want to know about a person. The argument about copyrite is silly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and DGG, notably re BLPs. Where there is special artistic, political or social significance to the signature, it should be depicted and explained within the article text. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support A photograph or portrait of the subject is expected and is useful for identification; additional forms of ID such as signature, fingerprints, blood type, etc. seem overkill. In the case of artists: if the artist signs his/her works, the signature is seen in any jpgs included in the article; if the artist doesn't sign his/her works, the signature is of no special interest. If editors want to give encyclopedic attention to a signature, it's better presented in context as in Albrecht Dürer or William-Adolphe Bouguereau. Ewulp (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support; easy. I've never understood the point of the signature in the infobox; if the point of an encyclopaedia is to include every possible piece of trivia and by the way information about or loosely linked to a subject, then i suppose i understand: For us, however, surely we are selective in the information we present, and in how we present it, and someone's signature, while perhaps of interest, is not really of encyclopaedic value ~ it doesn't help the reader understand more about the subject. Essentially, per Sandstein. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are many cases where a signature is relevant and should be in the infobox (e.g. a politician/statesman/monarch who signs legislation to bring it into effect, a central banker whose signature appears on national currency, an artist's signature on their work, being probably the biggest three). However, a narrower provision it is removed for BLPs where there is no prima facie reason to have it could work. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose only a Sith deals in absolutes. On a more serious note, there are some articles where this field adds value. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support I agree with others. If a signature is important then place it somewhere in the article where it is discussed. Otherwise it is just pointless decoration. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The collecting of autographs has been a field of study for centuries. This is one of those items that fits very nicely in an infobox and we should continue to do as we have. The suggestion that they hold no encyclopedic value forces me to question if the nominator ever read an encyclopedia (in print). I enjoy having them featured, where applicable. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support for BLPs only There is no issue for historical figures and in those cases they are often interesting and if not, at least harmless. BLPs are a different matter and they should only be included when their encyclopaedic value (whatever that may be) justifies it. Jschnur (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom, this should have been done long ago. If the signature is particularly notable for the person (looking at you,
  [majestic titan]
  03:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support with an exception for rare but reasonable uses like John Hancock. There's no need for this with the exception of figures of major significance like US Presidents. Most uses strike me as crass and fanboyish. Also support Guy Macon's compromise below. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. We already have a severe case of infobox bloat and the autographs served little purpose.
  Kablammo (talk
  ) 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As I said at ANI "What encyclopedic value do these actually serve?"..... there is no actual purpose to these and as such these should be done away with (with all sigs then deleted), Why would anyone care how a BLP signs their name ? ..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does the reader "need" to see a person's signature? No. But so what? It catches the eye; it adds visual interest. It "personalizes" the subject somehow. If there are cases where it's actually problematic to have a signature, then write a guideline to clarify those, but I see no reason to ban them from the boxes globally. --Trovatore (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose hard rule - Perhaps it's better to treat this on a case-by-case basis, meaning inclusion would depend on whether or not the signature adds to the article as a whole (personally, I don't really consider signatures of living people as a BLP problem as long as such signatures are known to the public anyway, like in autographs). But an outright ban seems too much.
  csdnew
  02:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The signature is a means of self-identification; most people don't have logos or any other visual means of identifying themselves to others (aside from plain text versions of their names), except for their signatures. Plus, even if there's a problem with including a signature image in some articles, that doesn't mean that we should remove it from all. If you think that one article shouldn't have it, then start a discussion, but don't remove large numbers of signatures with AWB or a bot, and definitely don't remove them all by cutting the parameter out from the template. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose signatures are a notable characteristic and worth mentioning. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Nihlus -- œ^™ 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: far too broad. In many cases the signature may have educational value for some readers. Jonathunder (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: The proposal seems to be in two parts - a) an assertion that no signature is ever relevant to an encyclopaedia. b) a move to strip signature images from every Infobox. I disagree with the assertion in a), but if that were ever to be the consensus of the community, so be it, and we would need to convert the essay
  WP:AUTOGRAPH into policy and ban use of all signatures or autographs in any article. Until such time as that happens, I firmly believe the Infobox is absolutely the right place to expect a signature to be located. It's akin to an infobox image of a person in visually summarising their identity. There's nothing to stop a signature/autograph being used elsewhere on a page, but we should not forced their removal from the most logical place to locate them by default - the Infobox. Issues relating to the uploading and appropriate use of signatures and autographs of living persons are best dealt with elsewhere and not in a discussion about Infobox data fields. Nick Moyes (talk
  ) 09:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: way too broad. If an article shouldn't have one, start a discussion there. Removing the parameter from the infobox makes no sense. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle but Oppose as written; whilst there's a very good case for getting rid of these things, there are instances where they have encyclopedic value, and so a more nuanced proposal is needed. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a content matter, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, on article talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "No encyclopedic value" is just another way of saying
  WP:NIME: That info got there because people cared enough to put it there. Jclemens (talk
  ) 05:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I agree with the OP that signatures are generally not relevant to the encyclopedia. However, in very limited cases, the opposite may be true. The standard should be to not include them, with the burden of proof of encyclopedic value and notability on those who wish to include them. A minimum requirement should be discussion of the signature in the article text. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support for BLPs, per privacy concerns. Oppose for BDPs.   ~ 
  dgaf
  )  15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Could get behind a looser wording that left John Hancock, etc. in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The signatures give our users a deeper understanding of the topic. Many times the signature itself is not notable enough to warrant prose in the body of the article. The info box is a perfect place for it. I also reject the BLP concerns people have raised. Unless there is some sort of applicable law we should include it for living people too. Protecting privacy isn’t our business here.—Adam in MO Talk 07:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing content because it's not "central" or "significant" continues, grinding WP down to mere overviews, bones with no meat. Any token that makes the subject - the individual - more real for the reader is to be granted our precious exhibition space. Doesn't a signature make a person vastly more 'actual', a physical reality, than some academic's whining about their tutor's faults? Shenme (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Well, shouldn't we be talking first about getting rid of images? Who cares what some 18th century king or poet looked like? How he looked has zero bearing on his kinging or poetry. Also the frigging birth dates -- can we cut that down to just the year, please? If someone was born in 1836 that has meaning; it places him in historical context. Whether he was born on July 17th or September 12th has no meaning; it's datacruft that has no bearing on the person's life and works. Don't even get me started on where the guy is frigging buried for chrissakes (ooooh so important for understanding his career), or the ******* spouse for crying out load (exceptions, as always, for the rare cases where any of this is important or meaningful to understanding the person's career). Then after dealing with this datacruft maybe we can start talking about signatures. Herostratus (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Signatures are often iconic (Nixon's for example), and merit inclusion. A sweeping ban is not the right solution. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A draconian measure with no justification. "No encyclopedic value" is an arbitrary, meaningless statement. Really, how can anyone say that signatures contain little or no encyclopedic value? Signatures are not only the most direct, personal, firsthand manifestation of an individual's identity, but they're literally the modern symbol of legitimacy and authenticity in the same way that a seals were historically (and still are) used. Personal correspondence, official correspondence, deeds, titles, declarations of independence, declarations of war, peace treaties—that is, any treaties, contracts, decrees, executive orders, banknotes, diplomas. It is signatures that give all of these things legitimacy in the eyes of society, and in the eyes of history. Far from being meaningless bits of information, the use of signatures (and before that, seals) to legitimize and authenticate documents is a cornerstone of civilization and has been since the very beginnings of human civilization. It's mind boggling to me that people don't think that there's any value in a signature, and that they're meaningless pictures provided for no other reason than that they're "neat" to look at. I find the very premise of this proposal unacademic. Swarm ♠ 20:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This sweeping omission would be unproductive, considering all of the notable signatures/signatures by notable people we deal with. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (Removal of signature fields)

• Removing the field from BLP infoboxes would curb this practice. My issues:

  No verification is provided of whether these signatures are the real ones, and if so, how they were acquired; surely the file description pages should state whether they were copied from the original or a copy of it.

  Risk of invasion of privacy.

  Risk of security breach: the display presumably makes it a proposition to forge the BLP's signature in real life.

  Query over what it adds to readers' understanding of the topic. Tony (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony1 has summarised the case for removing them well. I would add that if a signature is to be added it makes sense to do so in the body of the article, alongside the sourced content that justifies its inclusion. I can think of only a couple of cases (without checking the articles) when a signature was noteworthy. Richard Nixon’s, which deteriorated over the course of Watergate. Shakespeare who signed his name with a different spelling each time. But those are exceptional. The default should be not to include it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Nihlus: I'm not sure I understand your objection. How are those examples of signatures more worthwhile of being in an article infobox? And if the consensus was that the vast majority of signatures should be removed from infoboxes, what would be your recommendation be for defining those that you believe should be kept there? Why, specifically, should the ability to enact laws make the signature of that person more worthy of being displayed in an infobox? It's not as if the signature in one of our infoboxes is a determiner of whether those laws are legitimate or not, or that Wikipedia would be used as a source by a serious scholar investigating possibly forged signatures. I guess I just would like to hear some more on your point of view, since I don't believe the encyclopedia would be in any important way harmed by eliminating signatures in infoboxes altogether, and allowing the rare instance (John Hancock, for instance) where the signature has historic value in and of itself to be presented in an image in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: My last sentence says I am not opposed to their removal in general; rather, I am opposed to their removal without guidance. You are going to see many users wonder where they are and wonder where they should go. I don't believe this proposal adequately (if at all) addresses that concern. Nihlus 05:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • My concern was (and is) eliminating signatures in infoboxes, which is why the RfC addresses only that issue, but I have absolutely no objection to people having a discussion either here in this section or in a new section about what the standards should be for use of signatures in articles. However, I do see that as a separate matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Since the proposal has a little traction, I've added a link to it on
  WP:Centralized discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk
  ) 05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• In principle, I support the above proposal, but would like to ask whether an exception could be made for Template:Infobox_royalty? I've always liked the fact that our articles on Ottoman sultans include their tughras in the infobox. No big deal, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Removing the field from BLP infoboxes" What's a "BLP" infobox? How is that different from a "dead for decades" infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal:

Many of the support !votes have focused on privacy issues. and a fair number of the oppose !votes think that signatures are a good addition to articles about historical figures. How about only removing signatures from BLPs with an exception for individuals who have self-published their signatures? Nobody is going to use John Hancock's signature to commit identity theft, and if someone publishes their signature on their website or in a book they wrote, having it in an infobox doesn't increase the risk of it being used for nefarious purposes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• That would take me from oppose to support very easily. A Train^talk 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but those of us with this view are already inserting it into the !voting section above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appropriate, to limit the BLP question. Some living persons have used their signatures on books (Jimmy Carter, if memory serves me, and HRClinton), and wouldn't most American presidents and other world leaders' signatures be given public domain status due to their signature releases on official documents? Trump would be an example of a useful and interesting signature to keep in the infobox, and his official documented use should qualify as an aspect of public domain. Check out the {{John Hancock}} template, one of my favorites. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good approach. EEng 03:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment When I read the article on
  Picasso, I fully expect to see an image of his signature within an infobox, almost as a matter of course— and if I saw none I would suspect there had been some oversight. A signature field (whether filled or not) seems appropriate for those professions in which signatures are regularly recorded as either indicators of authorship (artworks, works of notable literary fiction) or highly-visible markers of participation/ group membership/ social roles (the Declaration of Independence, presidential acts, baseball player's sigs on baseballs, kings, queens, sultans, however not the signatures of most academics/ researchers, medical doctors, singers, drummers, producers, writers of non-fiction, etc.) and should probably not be encouraged in the latter by the presence of an empty signature parameter begging to be filled. Can't we maybe do that? KDS4444 ^(talk
  ) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  You expect it to be there because you're used to infoboxes having them; if they didn't, you wouldn't be. Your argument is essentially one for never changing anything, because "it's always been that way". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  KDS4444 more likely expected it to be there because Picasso's infobox should have his signature display, so the editor was surprised when it didn't. It certainly should be included, this is Picasso for Monet's sake. The argument isn't "it's always been that way" but more about the readers who, at least speaking for myself, like them and find some of them really interesting. Nothing is broken here, except for maybe the BLP issue which could be addressed as a separate topic if this discussion gets consensus to allow signatures of very notable he's-dead-Jim subjects (which seems to be the way it's heading). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  I would disagree with the statement "nothing's broken here". What's broken is that infoboxes are intended to be a quick summary of the subject of the article, and -- in my opinion, of course, and apparently in the opinions of quite a few other editors -- the subject's signature is not basic key information in the same way that, for instance, birth and death dates and an image are. (I'd also disagree with your statement up above "These are always interesting" - no, actually, with rare exceptions, they're not really interesting at all, they're pretty darn uninteresting -- again IMO.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It is interesting to see the differing handwriting between some historical figures and celebrities. In many ways it speaks about their character. --Penpalthe (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  So why did you just oppose an alternative proposal that keeps the signature of historical figures and celebrities? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak and watery support. I'm sure the reader should be encouraged to move on to more important things in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support—sensible. Tony (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support: as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd be fine with a requirement that the signature be openly published elsewhere before we can use it here. In fact, that would also be in keeping with the spirit of our
  WP:NFCC policies. --Tryptofish (talk
  ) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Supportish - Not sure there is such a problem, but if we limited this solely to living persons, with an exception of when that living person has published their signature elsewhere (artists are a good example), then the restriction makes sense as it addressing potential privacy issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Meh. Better than a global ban, I guess. I'm not convinced there's a real problem. If WP editors can get their hands on a signature, then the bad guys can probably do it independently, and I'm not sure it would do them that much good anyway. I would certainly support respecting takedown requests from the interested party. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC has transmogrified from a proposal on stripping a data field from a template to one on the circumstances in which a signature image is ok to be used. Seems an entirely different discussion to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You are correct, but often this is helpful to truly get a consensus on how editors feel about signatures in article, and gauging whether or not there is really a problem, and what that problem is. The RFC won't likely pass, but the extended content still provides useful information. If the alternative had strong enough support, it would create the basis for a whole new RFC, for instance. Or if it isn't, would demonstrate why a new RFC would be pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Why is the privacy of BLPs our concern? Is there a legal issue here? In some cases we have BLP’s with notable homes and we provide GPS coordinates to their domicile, when notable. If their signature is notable why shouldn’t we do the same? —Adam in MO Talk 07:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Deb (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• 'Support if "published" is construed boradly and "BLP" is construed narrowly. That is, signatures on public manifestos, artworks, and campaign materials are "published." A living Picasso or Walt Disney should have their signatures included. And the BLP concerns should exclude high profile figures.--Carwil (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The exact wording of it could be massaged later, but the central principle is sound, and is what I advocated (in part) in the main discussion above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)