The VisualEditor isn't going to be in project space at any point in the near future, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_07#Let_me_sign.21

^Updated link

I think it is important to enable signatures in VE. I have found it useful in a few circumstances; and regretted having to drop out of VE just for that one addition.

This is the only feature blocking VE from being useful in a much wider variety of contexts, in my opinion. (And it's odd for all sig options to be missing when reminders about how to sign and where to sign are some of the most prominent in the MediaWiki interface otherwise.)

I just noticed this is flagged as lowest-priority enhancement... again surprising considering the importance and prevalence of signing in wiki culture and other MW docs.

That's probably something to do with the fact that the VE isn't really being used in discussion namespaces.

This is not, by far, the only feature blocking VE from being useful in many other contexts. A lot of the discussion namespaces have their own idiosyncratic protocols and templates and formats that parsoid and the VE will then have to directly support, which is likely to be some (unknown) additional amount of work, and that'll all be done just in time for us to start releasing Flow, which does auto-signing.

I can understand the low prioritisation ;).

Will Flow be applicable to all namespaces? There are lots of article-style pages that temporarily or permanently would benefit from inline comments in the middle of what is otherwise a full-text long-form page. In those cases* I don't see how the Flow design will help.

Signatures are useful in most namespaces, whereas "idiosyncratic protocols and templates and formats", with unknown amounts of associated work, seem like higher-hanging tasty fleshy vegetalia.

• Examples: wikis that don't separate talk from content; wikis that have two layers of talk: limited inline v. permanent talk-threads; articles or main pages that tabulate membership or participation or otherwise include tables that include user signatures.

(In reply to comment #6)

Will Flow be applicable to all namespaces? There are lots of article-style
pages that temporarily or permanently would benefit from inline comments in
the
middle of what is otherwise a full-text long-form page. In those cases* I
don't see how the Flow design will help.

Like what? Some examples, please?

Signatures are useful in most namespaces, whereas "idiosyncratic protocols
and
templates and formats", with unknown amounts of associated work, seem like
higher-hanging tasty fleshy vegetalia.

Sure, and work on those namespaces is best done when we actually discuss _deploying_ in those namespaces - and when it is fully working for the primary target of the VE (i.e., the mainspace).

• Examples: wikis that don't separate talk from content; wikis that have two

layers of talk: limited inline v. permanent talk-threads; articles or main
pages that tabulate membership or participation or otherwise include tables
that include user signatures.

Actual examples for each example...?

To clarify, this is a "WONTFIX" for VE as it is (and will be) enabled on WMF projects, but if someone wants to write a plugin for VE for other wiki hosts using it that want to try to make VE work in discussion namespaces (and don't want to use Flow).

There are a number of meanings of "Lowest" priority, and this is one of the confusing ones. Sorry. :-(

Adding a signature with VisualEditor can be simulated using a template:

---template code:---
{{{Sign}}}
<noinclude>
This template allows to sign using Visual Editor by adding this template as you can't enter four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> in VE. Enter the template in VE. Hit Add template. Enter <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> in the field. Hit Insert template. Hit Save page. Enter edit summary. Hit Save. Doone.</br>
<templatedata>
{
"description": "A template to sign using Visual Editor. ",
"params": {

		"Sign": {
			"aliases": [
				"Signature"
			],
			"label": "Sign by entering ~~~~ in the field below",
			"description": "Field to enter signature, that is four tildes",
			"default": "Please enter four tildes here",
			"required": true
		}

}
}
</templatedata>
</noinclude>
---end of template code---

Usage:
Enter the template in VE. Hit Add template. Enter ~~~~ in the field. Hit Insert template. Hit Save page. Enter edit summary. Hit Save.

Example:
See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:VESign. Application of template tested on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ad_Huikeshoven/test.

Evaluation:
There might be nicer methods to accomplish the same, maybe using JS (I have no experiene writing JS). When there is a switch over to Parsoid rendering the templates mid-edit rather than relying on PHP parser the above solution will probably break, as will probably do any solution to bug 51146.

Whoa, that's scary. Please don't do that.

I wrote a script to implement signatures properly. This definitely isn't what the editor was designed to do, but, as it was noted in earlier comments, this has its use cases.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Matma_Rex/visualeditor-signature.js

Please comment about it on the script's talk page, not here :) I'd be happy to include more translations (there are just two words to translate).

I think the only thing missing is an icon that would match the look-and-feel of existing ones. I'd be happy to add it, too, if only someone drew one (SVG).

(In reply to SJ from comment #3)

I think it is important to enable signatures in VE. I have found it useful
in a few circumstances; and regretted having to drop out of VE just for that
one addition.

The use case I would like mention is adding your name to the list of interested attendees at the program pages of https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/. Bartosz tools works wonderfully outside content name space. However, it explicitly doesn't work on content name space in which the program pages at the Wikimania site reside.

I replied at [[meta:User talk:Matma Rex/visualeditor-signature.js]].

I wonder what should we do with this bug? I think it should be marked either RESOLVED WONTFIX or RESOLVED FIXED, but I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

Being a basic building block of a wiki which is currently missing from VE I would not mark this as Resolved until there is a solution integrated in VE. Better then to leave it open and hope that some volunteer takes it on if it is deemed to be outside of the scope for Wikimedia to implement.

Adding a signature should be as easy or easier (for the user) as adding an image or template. Also since there is nothing preventing signatures from being added to any namespace in the wikitext editor there should be no hard-coded exceptions in the VE-solution (although there could of course be site-wide setting disallowing them.

(In reply to Lokal_Profil from comment #14)

Being a basic building block of a wiki which is currently missing from VE I
would not mark this as Resolved until there is a solution integrated in VE.
Better then to leave it open and hope that some volunteer takes it on if it
is deemed to be outside of the scope for Wikimedia to implement.

There is never going to be a "sign post" feature integrated into VisualEditor as deployed on WMF servers. That's the whole point of Flow. From a perspective of "VisualEditor for WMF users", this is WONTFIXed.

This bug is not marked as "WONTFIX" though, because it's entirely plausible that someone might want to run VisualEditor on a wiki without Flow (or LQT or Message Wall or whatever).

Maybe we should bundle up Bartosz's code into a VE plug-in that's available for users (but not on by default)?

That sounds fine by me. So it would be enabled with a $wg config variable?

I wonder if it would make sense to let users enable it for themselves (by loading a RL module in common.js, for example).

(In reply to Bartosz Dziewoński from comment #16)

That sounds fine by me. So it would be enabled with a $wg config variable?

That was my thought, yes.

I wonder if it would make sense to let users enable it for themselves (by
loading a RL module in common.js, for example).

It doesn't; either VE namespaces are signable or they're not. A per-user setting doesn't make sense.

"Assigning" to Bartosz given he's done all the work here. :-)

Actually, a $wg config variable for this is not a very good idea. We should just be smart and display the signature button in the namespaces that need it (and no others).

Core MediaWiki currently has no way to do this (other than the implied assumption that all talk namespaces need signatures), but there happens to be a patch pending that would introduce one (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/87649). We should just wait for that to be implemented, and then use the same logic as wikitext editor when deciding whether to enable signatures or not.

It seems that bug 5645 which I thought to be a dependency is not going to be fixed in a useful way. The only way to proceed would be reimplementing the namespace selection logic in VE, which I'm wary of. I don't know how to proceed with this, I guess we'll be stuck with the gadget for the time being.

I am raising the priority of this bug. VisualEditor is now enabled for talk pages on Meta, yet I can't insert my signature using VisualEditor, which is a major shortcoming. Please fix!

(In reply to Pine from comment #20)

I am raising the priority of this bug. VisualEditor is now enabled for talk
pages on Meta, yet I can't insert my signature using VisualEditor, which is
a major shortcoming. Please fix!

What talk pages is it enabled for? Can you give an example? It doesn't appear on the talk pages I just looked at. This feels like a distinct bug.

Please read the history of this bug for why this is explicitly outside of the plans for VisualEditor; it's fundamentally the wrong approach. Resetting priority.

Perhaps someone enabled VE on talk pages when they shouldn't have?

It's enabled on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Comments

Ah, I see. That's not really labeled as a talk page on Meta, but it probably should be. I'll try to take care of that.

(In reply to Pine from comment #22)

Perhaps someone enabled VE on talk pages when they shouldn't have?

It's enabled on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Comments

Argh. That's not a talk page. You can tell because the talk page would be https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants talk:APG – this is really unhelpful of people to use the wrong namespace. I'm sorry about that. :-(

Yes, I've moved it to talk space. Sorry I didn't catch that earlier.

Like @AdHuikeshoven, I just ran into the use case where I can't sign myself to a list of Wikimania talk attendees.

Would anyone object to bumping up the priority of this to normal?

@Pine: Yes I'd object. :) Please see T53154#536989

I updated the description with information about the gadget implementing this feature.

In T53154#537004, @AdHuikeshoven wrote:

Adding a signature with VisualEditor can be simulated using a template:

---template code:---
{{{Sign}}}
<noinclude>
This template allows to sign using Visual Editor by adding this template as you can't enter four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> in VE. Enter the template in VE. Hit Add template. Enter <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> in the field. Hit Insert template. Hit Save page. Enter edit summary. Hit Save. Doone.</br>
<templatedata>
{
"description": "A template to sign using Visual Editor. ",
"params": {

		"Sign": {
			"aliases": [
				"Signature"
			],
			"label": "Sign by entering ~~~~ in the field below",
			"description": "Field to enter signature, that is four tildes",
			"default": "Please enter four tildes here",
			"required": true
		}

}
}
</templatedata>
</noinclude>
---end of template code---

Usage:
Enter the template in VE. Hit Add template. Enter ~~~~ in the field. Hit Insert template. Hit Save page. Enter edit summary. Hit Save.

Example:
See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:VESign. Application of template tested on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ad_Huikeshoven/test.

Evaluation:
There might be nicer methods to accomplish the same, maybe using JS (I have no experiene writing JS). When there is a switch over to Parsoid rendering the templates mid-edit rather than relying on PHP parser the above solution will probably break, as will probably do any solution to bug 51146.

Thank you for the code. Could the user also add a special button to VE or is it a difficult cooding?

In T53154#1138179, @Juandev wrote:

Thank you for the code. Could the user also add a special button to VE or is it a difficult cooding?

Per the task description and per my previous comment, there is a gadget that implements this that you can easily enable for yourself, or on your wiki.

Change 251834 had a related patch set uploaded (by Bartosz Dziewoński):
Provide a tool to insert a signature in namespaces that need it

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/251834

Change 251834 merged by jenkins-bot:
Provide a tool to insert a signature in namespaces that need it

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/251834

Is there any option how to add a signature button to the main VE bar (e.g. instead of the special symbol button or next to?) (discussed on cswiki; just asking if possible)

In T53154#2398111, @Dvorapa wrote:

Is there any option how to add a signature button to the main VE bar (e.g. instead of the special symbol button or next to?) (discussed on cswiki; just asking if possible)

This is not possible. We intentionally do not allow the toolbar to vary in the position of buttons on the same wiki.

@Jdforrester-WMF I see, thank you. Still looking for a good talk solution - Flow is too buggy, VisualEditor is not really designed for discussions and wikitext is not easy to learn for novice users.

In T53154#2399021, @Dvorapa wrote:

@Jdforrester-WMF I see, thank you. Still looking for a good talk solution - Flow is too buggy, VisualEditor is not really designed for discussions and wikitext is not easy to learn for novice users.

I think getting the bugs in Flow fixed is the best option at this point, but I appreciate that there's a few things people would like to see added there.

@Dvorapa, please contact me if you have any suggestions about Flow bugs which need to be fixed.

@Trizek-WMF Sure, I know, @Urbanecm told us the same on cswiki on community forum. I think we also have got on cswiki some bugs subpage under WP:Flow page, where all the bugs found are listed. I'll take a look into tasks I sent here, if there is another one I forgot to mention on that subpage.