Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 12

Recent discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Kaine questions whether the adding signatures to office-holder iboxes is a good idea for various reasons: WP:BLP/privacy; possible ID theft; no encyclopedic value etc.

Proposal: that the signature parameter be deleted from this and all related iboxes. – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: a large part of the issue is whether signatures have encyclopedic value such that they should, in principle, be added to every officeholder's infobox. The contention of those supporting removal of the parameter is that only a minority of signatures have encylopedic value (examples such as John Hancock are given), and that in such cases, the signature not only can be presented in the body rather than the infobox, but should be, since there will be a relevant context explaining why the signature has encylopedic value, and a caption and source can be given. Rd232 ^talk 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I whole-heartedly support this, not because it poses any "risk" whatsoever (which is an absurd assertion), but because these images are completely devoid of any encyclopedic value. faithless (^speak) 03:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no encyclopedic value in putting an image of a signature into the infobox, and for living people there are also ID theft/forgery reasons that nearly require such removal in the absence of high encyclopedic value. GRBerry 14:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• oppose "Encyclopedic value" is not a real argument. To say that a signature is not enciclopedic is to say that it can't be used in such a way in an encyclopedia. However, there are a lot of definitions, contents and approachs of encyclopedias, sharing only a basic conception, and it isn't written anywhere that including a signature inside a box that provides a summary of information isn't "allowed". So, to say that signatures are not encyclopedic is to say that they do not fit into one's personal interpretation of what should an encyclopedia have or not have; which means, it's a "I don't like it" argument. As for privacy or ID concerns, signatures of public people are not something concealed: they keep using it on multiple documents (even public documents) that pass to other people beyond their control. Better than a simple vague concern, I would like to see some specific law or jurisprudence ruling that there can be some problem with making signatures "public" to start thinking about doing something about them MBelgrano (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. While I agree with the concerns about identity theft, copyright, verification and right to privacy under BLP, what are the thoughts on signatures of dead people? Removing the parameter entirely affects the articles of those both alive and dead. I have no strong feelings on the matter as I am having trouble thinking of any examples of where a signature would add significant value, but the lack of discussion on the effects to articles about dead people seems to be striking.

I would suggest that editors consider the effect on articles of both living and dead people when making their replies here. If consensus forms that it should be retained for dead people but removed for living then we can set usage notes to say so or consider alternative solutions. Road Wizard (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If this is a proposal to remove this field from all infoboxes, should this discussion not be held in a more central location? MitchellDuce (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The discussion could be held here, but it should certainly be publicized in more high traffic areas. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC, perhaps? Road Wizard (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I have seen discussion regarding its inclusion on several template talk pages (e.g., here), so a centralized discussion could be good. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I just added the RFC template. MitchellDuce (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (conditional) - defaulting to oppose to make it clear to any admin asked to make a protected edit that consensus has not yet been established. A change on this scale should receive a broader base of discussion than a debate on one noticeboard and one template talk page. The issues here relate to how signatures should be treated across the wiki and not just on this one template; either this discussion should be taken to a more appropriate venue or the proposers should make a request for comment. This oppose !vote can be discounted if a thorough discussion has taken place covering the issues for articles on both living and dead people. Road Wizard (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. In many cases these people's signatures can be found online, anywhere on bills that have been signed. In fact, most of these officeholder's signatures can be obtained by sending a letter to their office, and getting a form letter in return with their signature. Saying that this can cause identity theft therefore wouldn't be a good argument to have it deleted. In addition, all of the signatures will stay on the Commons because they are in the public domain. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Query What is the benefit of the including an image of the signature? This isn't meant to be snarky or to imply there isn't one; I really don't know what it is. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say for educational value. Such as the signature of John Hancock. Also reading the comments above, if there is a consensus to remove the parameter, I strongly oppose it being removing on non-living (dead) person's articles. If they are deceased, there is literally no risk of privacy/identity theft. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument from John Hancock is invalid. His signature is of obvious educational value, and for that reason already appears elsewhere in the article. Removing the infobox parameter will not affect that. -- Zsero (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also for aesthetic value. I find it interesting to see signatures of various personalities, such has Monarchy, politicians, etc.. I have also seen actual encyclopedias (World Book) include signatures on some biographies. Connormah (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with all of the reasons to oppose from above. Deceased person's signatures no no chance a identity theft, and to tell the truth, a good eye could tell these signatures from authentic signatures. These signatures mostly come from online, or letters/autographs obtained from the people themselves. It not not really that hard to obtain such a thing from a living person. Connormah (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Connormah, there is no risk for those for dead people. As for the living, I think it is a pretty safe bet that an official whose signature gets out there in the public domain because he has to sign documents, takes all appropriate precautions. I don't see a strong reason for deleting this parameter. And speaking as someone who has gone to considerable lengths to get signatures for his FAs (including, twice, eBay), I think there is something personal about a signature that adds to the sometimes dry needs of biography.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm commenting here at Connormah's request. I essentially agree with him, though I also believe that we should be judicious in the use of the field when it comes to living people. As for the value added by signatures, I think it's about the same as the value added by photographs of article subjects (for subjects not notable for their appearance): it helps the reader feel some connection with the subject that they may otherwise lack. Steve Smith (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Connormah and above. ZooFari 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The BLP concerns are extremely far-fetched. Signatures are encyclopedic additions that can usually be publicly found. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree that the signature has no encyclopedia value. Take Eli Lilly for example, his signature is the basis for the logo a billion dollar international corporation. William Henry Harrison is another good example, as a President his signature would have been used to enact legislation. I think of quite a few other uses where a signature would be encyclopedic. As for BLP, how many living people are actually using this template first of all? Secondly, any executive (political or business), authors, and in some cases celebrities, would have an encyclopedic value to their signature IMO. In short I oppose the wholesale removal of the parameter, but would be open to the creation of a BLP guideline in regards to signatures and then enforcing the guideline to remove any unacceptable uses of signatures. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but not due to BLP concerns (these are so weak that I think no comment is necessary). I see no encyclopedic purpose for having signatures in the infobox. These are generally of interest only to autograph collectors, perhaps. Otherwise, they are purely decorative. Of course, if a signature actually has encyclopedic importance, there's no reason not to put it elsewhere in the article. GregorB (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the view that a signature has no encyclopedic value to be rather speculative. In my view, for executive politicians, signatures execute legally enforceable instruments and for that reason are encyclopedic. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This has also been brought to attention at Template Talk:Infobox writer, and I intend to reply there with comments specific to writers, but alluding to the pros and cons here, in particular to say I think it is more interesting for a writer as it gives a sample of the writer's manuscript (though perhaps not a very good one, considering how many signatures are not typical of a writer's usual handwriting). I might also bring it to the attention at [::Template Talk:Infobox military person]], although it is not currently a field in that template, and so would be the flip-side argument for inclusion, and I can only see its relevance if the person signed a surrender or such forth, and even then that seems marginal to me. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose here at Infobox officeholder. Signatures that are already in the public realm should not pose a problem of privacy etc, and the assumption (a false one, but still the case) is that they are not easily forged. I think any residual concerns on that front could be handled as they are for e.g. artwork, that a small image that could not be effectively reproduced at sufficient resolution to pass as an original may be acceptable. Were digital signatures to be proposed, I would support that they not be included, since their sole purpose is to indicate that a document was written or authorised by the person who said it was, and they have no intrinsic value as (if I may use such a term) works of art. Considering the number of autograph-hunters, it is obvious that at least to many people, a signature has intrinsic value, and a reproduction of it, with the caveat given above that it should not pass muster as a real signature, seems reasonable to me. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thinking about this more, perhaps I should clarify. I think perhaps some guidelines on "what is a signature" for this purpose may be relevant. I would argue it should be something like "a reproduction of the person's usual handwritten way of authorising physical objects as being original works by himself or herself". That may, for example, include signatures on materials other than paper. I think handwriting is important: the reason I mentioned digital signatures was to show that they are unencylopaedic being (for our purpose) a random jumble of numbers, but although they cannot be reproduced perfectly, in theory that is not in itself enough to prove authorisation (they generally use public key encryption, so that the signatory or a certification agent has the private key which proves the signature). The other point is whether, for example, an image of a thumbprint or the letter "X" counts as a signature, or a seal. In this field I presume there would be examples where the signatory was illiterate (King John's seal on Magna Carta might be a prominent example; Prince (musician) perhaps another, although I note his symbol is in his infobox, under "also known as".) I would reject the idea that these are signatures, although there might be a case for saying if they are interesting enough an image could be provided outside the infobox. So the essence of it being "handwritten" here is not that it is drawn with a pen, but that it consists of a (vaguely) recognisable orthographic sequence. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• • And we all sign ourselves here, where our signatures are easily forged, and I doubt many of us check the history every time to make sure the post was actually made by the signatory. Admittedly the consequences of such a forgery are, in the big scheme of things, fairly minimal, and the signatures are used mostly for courtesy, but I think it emphasises the point that signatures are essentially public. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as far too broad. Books showing signatures (primarily for the benefit of autograph collectors) abound, as do articles explaining uses of autopens. There is no danger to a person in having his "official autograph" shown online as long as it is already found in a WP:RS source. Signatures do, indeed, have "encyclopedic value" and are not able to be used for identity theft. Collect (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There is no value to placing this in any biographical article, yet there is large potential for harm, including identity theft. I challenge anyone here to demonstrate said encyclopedic value if they disagree. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support, because having it as a standard parameter implies it is desirable to have a signature for every such case. This is simply not true, and in the few cases where signatures are actually of encyclopedic value (rather than merely completist decoration), they should be presented in context in the body text, as a separate image with an appropriate explanatory caption. Where this is not justifiable, it serves no purpose to have the signature in the infobox, beyond distracting the reader with eyecatching irrelevancy. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not all parameters are used on every article and editors are quite able and willing to argue against inclusion of parameters on individual articles. For example the Religion parameter is often ignored and most articles have no need for the military parameters. If you are concerned that the parameter will lead to universal adoption without proper consideration then we can set usage notes on the limits of using the parameter. Road Wizard (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  No, because as I said, where their inclusion in the article is merited, "they should be presented in context in the body text, as a separate image with an appropriate explanatory caption." Infobox is not the place for them. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Rd232 sums it well. Signatures don't usually have encyclopedic value. The parameter implies that they usually have. I think it should be stressed that this proposal should not be construed as a policy to remove signatures, but rather to not encourage their inclusion. Rami R 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I remind you of my first reasoning: "no encyclopedic value" is not a valid reason, since encyclopedias come in countless varieties and their only common point is their basc conception, without having written anywhere that signatures are not "allowed" in summaries. In any case, t may not fit your own idea of what should an encyclopedia have, which is not the same. So don't try to turn the question around: in the lack of a higher rule on the matter, we don't have to "demonstrate" why it should be kept, it is you who should demonstrate why it shouldn't. MBelgrano (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No, by default we exclude content, because that is the purpose of an encyclopedia: to act as a filter, sifting the relevant and useful from the pile of data Out There. Only things of demonstrable usefulness should pass through the filter. The reader will not thank us if we neglect the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia by turning the question around and saying "include by default, unless reason is shown to exclude". Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, the purpose of an encyclopedia is quite the opposite, go ahead and investigate it. Encyclopedias aim to gather all knowledge. Printed ones did not actually include all knowledge because of format limitations (size of the final book, printing cost, events developing on real time while it's being written, it has to be finished, printed and sold at some point, etc.). Wikipedia, having defeated most of such limitations, sets some basic rules of notability to avoid being abused. But that's it. Encyclopedias (either printed or online ones) never aimed to be some kind of authority of scholars in a crystal tower that determines which knowedge is valuable and which one isn't. MBelgrano (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • "Encyclopedias aim to gather all knowledge." - but that is precise my point: they turn a bunch of data Out There into knowledge In Here, which involves filtering. If you can't show how datum X is useful, you should exclude it: knowledge is data filtered, analysed, applied. Wikipedia has different constraints than a printed encyclopedia, yes - it means it has many more articles and subarticles, on wonderfully obscure topics. What it emphatically does not mean is the inclusion of every piece of available data in any given article, regardless of merit. Why? Primarily not the constraints on editing and maintenance (though that matters too), but the constraints on the reader's limited attention. By your logic, we could have parameters for infoboxes on what the officeholder has for breakfast on Tuesdays. Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, we can. There are many books out there that dwell into such topics, such as health or private habits of presidents or national founding fathers. It may be perfectly legitimate to gather them all toguether and write an encyclopedia on the topic. Were is it written that we can't? After all, there are encyclopedias on 80's pop songs or middle earth characters. Have in mind that there are 2 different concepts here: the broad definition of what is an encyclopedia, and the narrow definition of the community consensus on what approach should an article on a given topic have in "our" encyclopedia. Content in wikipedia should be in line with both ones, of course, but a proper Argument from authority can only be done in broad cases (such as using wikipedia to write fictional stories); specific discussions are subject to our own local consensus. MBelgrano (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • You don't seem to be hearing (or at least, addressing) my distinction. We can have articles on just about anything, but we can't have just about anything in any given article. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support because signatures are not normally of any encyclopedic interest; where they are, they can be shown and discussed in the article body.  Sandstein  12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per TheWeakWilled. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, but... language can be added to discourage the use of signatures where the signature is not already well-known. We definitely need signatures of people who routinely sign documents in public places, e.g. Presidents, but we probably don't for many people whose job doesn't entail a lot of public signing and whose signature is not already widely available. There needs to be a balance between "what is the risk of abuse of the signature if it is on-wiki vs. not on-wiki" vs. "what is the value of having it on-wiki." As a general rule of thumb, if the signature is on the officeholder's official web site for all to see, there is no risk and therefore no harm in having it on-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "We definitely need signatures of people who routinely sign documents in public places..." and the reason for that is? The mere fact that identity theft may not be an issue in many cases is not an actual argument for inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry, I assumed the encyclopedic value of such signatures was obvious. Obviously, I was mistaken. Perhaps a better wording would be "we [as meta-editors] definitely don't need to put up procedural roadblocks to including signatures of people who routinely sign documents in public places if the editors of the article consider them encyclopedic." This will leave it up to the editors of the article to decide whether or not to include such signatures. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know what you mean by "procedural roadblocks" - this is discussion is about removing the signature parameter from the infobox (so inclusion in the infobox would not be harder, it would be impossible). I argue that this is a good thing because wherever the inclusion of the signature is a good thing, it is better to include it in the article than in the infobox. A second best to removing the parameter would be clear guidelines that the parameter is only to be used when it would be justifiable to include the signature in the article proper. Rd232 ^talk 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Please keep in mind that the identity theft arguments are only for living people. How about deceased people? I'm surprised nobody has brought it up yet.. Connormah (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • As to the identity theft arguments, if the said person signs something (eg, a document, book, etc), they are taking the risks by putting their signature out there. Signatures aren't usually concealed by any high level government official/famous writer Connormah (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't know why you're replying to me. My general objection has nothing to do with identity theft, which I assume is handled on a case-by-case basis. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • It isn't. I apologize you have thought so. Connormah (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Signatures are copyright-free, and can provide some free content visual context for articles where obtaining images is difficult. I don't see any privacy concerns, since the sources for signatures is most likely going to be public already, so having or not having signatures is not going to change anything. I feel that most objections to using signatures amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Blargh29 (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  As opposed to the argument for the use of signatures amounting to WP:ILIKEIT? Rami R 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Q: how many people's signature is available, where no other images are? Secondary Q: in such cases, is the infobox the best place for the signature? Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Counter-counter Q:How many people have had their identifies stolen because of their signature being on Wikipedia? This proposal seeks to change long-standing consensus. Arguments in favor of that change are weaksauce and no amount of counter-questions, badgering, and demanding percentages is going to change that. I'm not convinced, and that's because y'all haven't convinced me.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  ???? The only time I've mentioned identity theft in this discussion has to been to discount it as an issue. Would you care to address what I've actually said? Rd232 ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Would you care to read the proposal that you are supporting, which lists "possible ID theft" as the second reason for its passage?--Blargh29 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  So unless every reason for the proposal is valid, it should be opposed? The issue noted in my clarification just below the proposal can be ignored? Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The image of an important figure's signature may not be that important, but it's still an interesting tidbit of information. I say that we may as well keep it for those doing research who like those kinds of personal factoids. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • An image of a signature is not a factoid, and nor does it carry information, unless you think Graphology is in fact not a pseudoscience. Signatures should be included only where there is a specific reason, and where there is one, they should be in the body text. Answer me this: in what way would the same logic you propose not apply to pictures of officeholders' pets? The handful of people interested in that would be far better accommodated by having articles specifically about that; a mere list would do (List of images of signatures of officeholders; List of images of pets of officeholders), keeping distracting irrelevancy away from readers' limited attention and mindspace. And BTW, has nobody here ever done any user interface testing? The placement of the signature in the infobox, often above the fold and competing with the lead section and TOC, does draw the eye, yet it carries no information. It is useless distraction. Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. No encyclopaedic value. If we have signature, why not shoe size, or first kiss. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite. I'm starting to think that the only argument the opposers have is "identity theft is not an issue" for including signatures in the infobox. Fine, but it's just not an argument for inclusion in the infobox! Identity theft isn't an issue for including shoe size, first kiss, or images of pets either... And none of it has anything to do with whether these things can be included in the article body, when their relevance is demonstrated. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Aesthetic value also. World Book includes signatures. Connormah (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, if the discussion was stagnant in "I like it" vs. "I don't like it", then the result would be to keep. It's the same if the options are "it's not encyclopedic" vs. "it's encyclopedic", none of which can ever be "proved" as there isn't anywhere any decalogue of rules detailing which specific contents can be included at an encyclopedia and which ones not. The broad scope of things that must be left out because of not being encyclopedic by usual standards of what is an encyclopedia are detailed at WP:NOT. For the narrow scope of specific elements, arrangements or designs, if they fall within the broad scope then we decide ourselves the shape we will give to our encyclopedia, no external "authority" would force us. MBelgrano (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Phew, then it is a good thing I'm an internal authority. :) Were I to start introducing shoe sizes intro everyone's infoboxes, or a list/gallery of tattoos (which would be relatively easily sourced), what argument would you use for their removal that doesn't equally apply to signatures? It is arbitrary to include signature and exclude, say, favourite cereal brand - both of which are about equally pertinent to a biographical article. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      • What does it mean to state that something should be left out because of not being encyclopedic? It means that we shouldn't be discussing it, because some higher authority had already decided that signatures can not be included in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia should follow that. That's what I meant by "external authority". However, there isn't any such authority stating anything either way about signatures or shoe sizes. What do we do then? We decide ourselves, the community of Wikipedia. We surely won't include information about shoe sizes, but not because anyone tells us not to do so, but because among the countless approachs we can give to an encyclopedia most of us would surely agree to leave that information out. If all of us (or at least a rough consensus) decided to leave signatures out, we would leave them out. But that doesn't seem to be the case, and it doesn't seem to be any external authority out there that would justify proceding even with the lack of such clear consensus. MBelgrano (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

        This is, or should be, a discussion, not a vote. I've yet to hear a compelling argument for keeping them, other than WP:ILIKEIT. I think things that don't add value to an article (unencyclopaedic things) should be removed, whether signatures or shoe sizes. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The real answer is that once upon a time, someone got away with adding the signature parameter, and nobody can actually produce a coherent argument for keeping it; just vague philosophical arguments that would apply to keeping almost anything (also red herrings about "identity theft is not an issue here", a non-argument so useful it almost deserves its own essay, WP:IDENTITYTHEFTNOTANISSUE... that'll be very handy: "why did you do X?" - "WP:IDENTITYTHEFTNOTANISSUE, basta"). But because WP:NOTAVOTE is a story we tell ourselves, the way this RFC is going it will end "keep" or "no consensus" regardless of the fact that no actual arguments are presented for including this parameter (as opposed to including parameters for absolutely anything, an obviously untenable position, as we've being trying to argue with our ad absurdum arguments, which no-one has bothered to address). Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You need consensus to delete, not consensus to keep. With the identity theft issue dismissed, there isn't either an elaborated reason to delete it, and the "it's not encyclopedic" reason can be described under similar terms than those you just used MBelgrano (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be an admission that there is no actual reason to have signatures in the infobox as a matter of course, as opposed to in the body when of demonstrated relevance. Of course the fact that nobody has yet even tried to distinguish the significance of signatures from pictures of pets or of officeholders' shoes ("it's what he was wearing while doing X!") seems fairly conclusive. (Nor has anyone engaged with the distinction between including in the infobox, where there is no caption or context, and including in the body text, where there may be.) Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did: shoe sizes are left out by our own choosing. If you are expecting an answer of the type "Denis Diderot said in X book, Y page, that signatures are not incompatible in summaries of information in an encyclopedic article" you won't find any, nor you can provide us with other one stating otherwise. By the way, insisting in comparing signatures with shoe sizes, and concluding that signatures should not be included because shoe sizes shouldn't ether, is a straw man argument. MBelgrano (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for authority on inclusion of signatures in encyclopedia: I'm asking for some argument that signatures as a class are such an interesting thing that they should be included, as a matter of course, in the infobox (without caption, context, or sourcing). I'm asking for some argument how, as a class, signatures are of greater intrinsic interest than (for example) shoe sizes. That the best you can too is dismiss this as a straw man argument suggests you have nothing whatsoever to offer on that score. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why doesn't a signature have encyclopedic value? Also, per TheWeakWilled. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - some signatures, such as those of Walt Disney or Eli Lilly, clearly have encyclopedic values since they became the logos of famous companies. In general, I think the encyclopedic value of a signature is a bit similar to that of a portrait - for some it's useless, for others it may give an insight into the person's personality. Laurent (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overbroad, blanket solution to a very limited problem. Responding to individual requests for removal should be handled by existing process. Privacy concerns are not really an issue as very few things depend on signature matching to verify identity. When the signature is a matter of public record, or obtained from a reliable source, there should be no qualms about including it as an additional visual indetification of the subject of an article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would consider signatures to be both encyclopedic and fascinating. I don't see any reason to remove them just like I see no reason to remove images of the person or the home they grew up in. The sig is part of what they are, sort of how I'm about to sign with the four tildes. Valley2city^‽ 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) (see, I just did it)
  • As far as I'm aware, there is no infobox parameter for "images of ... the home they grew up in". Make of that what you will (bearing in mind the proposal is to remove the infobox parameter for signatures, not to ban inclusion of signatures in articles). Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, you are correct that we don't put these other things in the infoboxes but this is not just about the sigs being in infoboxes but ukexpat is also arguing they are not encyclopedic. I think the sigs are encyclpedic but also have no place outside the infobox (unless we're talking about someone like John Hancock (as many argue above) who is notable for his signature and therefore the signature would also go into the article). The signature is another piece of vital information along with a small picture of the person, what district they represent, et al. Valley2city^‽ 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, signatures are not only unnecessary, they are also quite possibly copyvios. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually typical signatures are not public domain. See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Link broken? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No. Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. —  Cargoking  talk  17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated in my opinion, the point is that a signature is a unique, visual representation of an individual. It is the equivalent of a photo when it is included in an infobox. If there is no reason to remove photos from the template, then there is no reason to remove the signature param. It is certainly valid for inclusion. Also, the determination we are seeking here is consensus to change. An integral part of WP:AGF and WP:BRD is not that we need to achieve consensus to delete, but consensus to change the status quo. None of the oppose opinions have expressed a policy- or guideline-based reason for the proposed change. Absent consent to change, the status quo should remain. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Obvious support. Most signatures have absolutely no encyclopaedic value. Most of the opinions above seem to be that they're useful, pretty, no more likely to cause fraud than anything else, and that they're free. Even the old favourite "no reason to remove them" comes up again. Some signatures undoubtedly do have values. Those should be included and discussed at a relevant place in the article. As for those claiming there's mo copyright here, last time I checked a signature was supposed to be an individual expression of creativity. I can't think of a single reason for including them in articles that doesn't boil down to it being merely useful or interesting. When someone signs a bill, it's the person that makes the law, not the signature. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  So, looking at your second to last sentence, you can think of reasons that "boil down to it being merely useful or interesting"? If something is useful or interesting then that is reason in itself to include it. One of the ideas of an encyclopedia after all is to provide information that is useful and interesting.

  As a separate point this discussion seems far too polarised to reach a conclusion other than no consensus. If people are serious about limiting the use of signatures then I suggest developing an essay or guideline. A straightforward "yes or no" question doesn't seem to be getting results so a guideline that allows compromise between universal retention or removal may get better results. Road Wizard (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  I agree, there seems no clear consensus to keep or delete, and it would seem sensible then to keep it but in no way suggest it is expected for every officeholder, i.e. only include it if it seems like it adds value, which is best argued case-by-case. Removing the field cuts off that possibility entirely, which seems counterproductive. Of course, the signature could be added in the article outside the infobox, but considering that usually signature images are fairly small and simple, it makes sense to me that they are in the infobox if they are anywhere at all: I think if it were removed, what would happen is people would add them elsewhere to the article anyway if they thought fit, so the upshot would be that the article would still have the signature just not in the infobox.

  I would agree that guidelines for inclusion/exclusion would be useful, and certainly we need to remove any false notion that a field's presense in an infobox makes it compulsory or always desirable. For a similar reason, I asked for resting-place to be added to Infobox writer, but it won't be important for all (or perhaps even a majority) of writers, but for some it will be: again, the field was accepted on the understanding that it would not be used when irrelevant. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Any articles where the signature has an obvious added value can include it outside the infobox. To include it as a parameter inside the infobox suggests that it is something we actively encourage to include, even though for most persons (excluding painters, some other artists, and the occasional exception) the signature is not an important aspect of their life or work. Apart from the above raised concerns of identity theft, copyvio, ..., my main concern is WP:UNDUE: we should not include a verifiable but unimportant aspect of someone (just like, indeed, we don't include shoe size, eye colour, fingerprints or blood type (apart from articles on Japanese voice actors where the blood type is supposedly of extreme importance)). The infobox should be used for those aspects that identify the person in general (name, birthdate, deathdate, birthplace, deathplace) and all things directly related to his or her fame (works, awards, job, ...). For comics authors and painters, the signature is often the most recognizable "photo" of the person, as it is the most obvious link between all his works. For most other people, the signature means nothing and would not be recognized by most readers who already knew the person. Fram (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — I personally don't see that leaving the parameter in the infobox is a detriment to the display of the infobox in articles. I find the inclusion of publicly available signatures to be a nice extra tidbit in the articles I have read, much like the inclusion of highway shields in highway articles. It's more of a decoration, but stickly speaking, pages after pages of straight text needs something to break up the visual monotony, like good tables, photos, maps and other images. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Between removing the parameter and keeping it in, how about as a compromise articles can opt-out of including the signature. What I mean is, if there is any reason to believe the subject of an article is opposed to having the signature on their article, the signature can be removed and that's that? While people appear to favor it, it's honestly not important enough for it to fight wars over. This should seem intuitive, yet recent edit warring on Tim Kaine makes me believe that is not the case. @harej 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In such a case, it would be better to point such concerns to a deletion request of the signature image itself (which would be done at Commons). Otherwise, even if we remove it the image is still lurking around (and still usable for the purposes that the interested person was seeking to avoid), and may even be still used at other projects with similar infoboxes. MBelgrano (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support deleting the signature of any subject that requested it. That's a Commons matter, but we can at least remove it from the article. Steve Smith (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Any article may elide any part of any template already. No need to alter the template at all. Only if an image is deleted at Commons through the normal procedures would the image cease to be available for users. WP does not have the power to dictate the procedures in other entities. Collect (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought if a living person objected to information that was on his or her biography, that would already be covered under the guidance at WP:BLP. As said above, this requires no technical change to the template. I still feel that the documentation is free to give guidance on the matter on where a signature may or may not be appropriate, and what is considered a signature (i.e. what kind of form this field should take). Si Trew (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I'm pointing that just removing the signature without deleting it may not be enough. This scenario would justify starting a deletion request on Commons, regardless on whenever the image is removed inmediately from the article or not. And yes, Wikipedia can not dictate policy for Commons or other projects, but this isn't the case: BLP is something that the foundation itself has dictated for all projects. MBelgrano (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is where this discussion belongs. The concept isn't limited to one infobox, surely. Flatterworld (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)