Forum:SH Archive/Signature rules on nomination pages

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358 ^(Talk) 11:49, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

I was recently confronted with the accusation of not signing my comments after my edit to the CAN page. I created a bulleted objections list on the page, placing my signature at its end. However, after other users inserted their responses beneath the corresponding bullet points, the article's nominator stated that what I was doing was in violation of the signature policy. My usage of a nickname in the objection heading was also deemed impermissible.

Since I have observed even Inqs and ACs doing just the same thing finely, I would like to inquire about the community's opinion as well as an official stance.—TK-999 ^{(Rise of the Empire)} 17:39, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

• When the bullet list is prefixed by a hash (#), it clearly becomes an entity and one signature should be enough. If you only use bullets, it might be slightly confusing. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:56, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is the first time I'm seeing such conflict. Wow, Gethralkin sure interprets the rules way too strictly. I can say only that myself, and pretty much anyone else, while using bulleted lists signs only the last point. It just seems like the most logical way to do things, and I've never experienced any confusion because of it. IMO, signing each point makes the page looks unnecessarily cluttered. As for the usage of nicknames, I don't see anything wrong with that too, as experienced users can easily identify the reviewer by his "catch phrase," while less experienced nominators can just, you know, look up the signature at the end of the review. C'mon, we don't need to regulate everything, let's keep it fun. We are not the Spanish Inquisition. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 18:05, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify: my format was the following:

#Heading
*blah blah
*etc. etc.
*and so on…~~~~

—TK-999 ^{(Rise of the Empire)} 18:14, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

• If using the hash, you should probably do

#Heading
#*blah blah
#*etc. etc.
#*and so on…~~~~

instead. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your assistance.—TK-999 ^{(Rise of the Empire)} 18:50, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry guys. I have a way too busy schedule and it wasn't immediately apparent who posted what at first. The Objection vote didn't exactly match the sig at the end of the list of comments so I initially thought it was different. I don't have a lot of time to spend searching so that was why I got confused. Thanks for clearing things up, though. Gethralkin^Hyperwave 00:30, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
      • No prob. :) We all get a little stressed at times. MasterFred^(Whatever) 13:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)