Wikipedia talk:Deletable signatures proposal

I think this is a necessary evil. Some users have in the past couple of years begun using some ridiculous signatures. It's like the new batch of userboxes. The purpose of a signature is to identify the user, not to express their personality, political views, current spam link etc.

I'd suggest a few modifications though. The rule against using unicode is Bad, I think. Don't we let people register nicknames with unicode characters nowadays?

Also, the 100-character limit should take into account the maximum length of user name (I have no idea what it is). If a person can register a username with more than 100 characters, then the limit would have to be higher for such users.

One final suggestion of mine is that it should also be against the policy to have a signature the text of which does not relate to the person's username, nickname or real name. So no random sentences as your signature. Remember, the purpose of a signature is to identify you. - Mark 14:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have signature guidelines at Signatures, why not just propose changes to those? Also we already have rules against disruption, so if a signature is really a problem and the community expresses that then that is actionable anyways. This seems like instruction creep to me. H 14:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now was my tiny little signature that uses a regular link color really so distracting or disruptive that it has to be redacted? This is exactly the sort of instruction creep, and enforcement for the sake of enforcement I was talking about in my post of 14:53, 1 June 2007. Then again it occurs to me that Tony may have done that simply as a demonstration of his suggestion, if so then no big deal. ( H )  15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your signature violates the guidelines at Signatures in that it is "so small that it is difficult to read". Is it necessary for you to have both superscript and small tags? - Mark 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really difficult to read? Can you send a screenshot? It looks plenty easy to read to me. ( H )  15:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a screenshot: . - Mark 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks plenty readable to me, perhaps you have a blurry monitor. ( H )  16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replacing with "unsigned" is unnecessary and produces an unsightly mess. Just replace with Example (where Example is replaced by the actual username) and the timestamp. For the rest, we have the Signatures guideline (SIG). --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Creepy. I would possibly give this just a few more seconds thought if the proposing editor's own signature didn't violate this proposal. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll spend all our time deleting people signatures and replcing them with unsigned than creating an encyclopedia.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Way to much WP:CREEP, Why dont you just add stuff like "no signatures can contain anything but alpha numeric" or "no signatures that abbreviate long names." Sure there are some that are long and have colors or bold but what do colors and bold hurt? That is where the creep is. I have no problem with expressing distaste for excessivley long usernames, however do have a problem when you attempt to stifle individuality that does not hurt anybody. Plus, as stated above the effort to replace EVERY signature that may violate those rules is just pointless.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please don't do this. This is a waste of server load, and will cause conflict for no good reason.  When people have over-the-top signatures the proper thing to do is to discuss the issue with them, try to convince them to change their signature, and if necessary go to WP:RFC.  Or just leave them alone.  Distinctive signatures are a good thing, it helps us to identify different users.  Mango juice talk 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And on top of this, replacing with unsigned is inappropriate: people will see that and think the user doesn't know to sign their posts, which is false. Mango juice talk 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your signature kinda violates the guidelines at Signatures in that it is difficult to read by people with vision difficulties. The colour "orange" in Internet Explorer is very light, almost yellow, compared to other browsers, as I understand it. - Mark 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this proposal is unnecessary. Those who want to refactor talk pages don't need a guideline to tell them they can go ahead and do it.  Instruction creep is a very good description of this. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

sidenote I find it highly amusing that Lubaf's own signature doesn't yet comply with the rules he proposes. I'm very tempted to replace it with. - The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose this suggestion is either colosed, as rejected, or moved to Wikipedia_talk:Signatures. I also suggest that the user proposing it to comply by his own proposals if he wants to be taken seriously. BTW, I also dislike some sigs - specially the ones that do not show the user's real username - but I've seen much more (ab)use of them in the past. - Nabla 15:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I suggest rejected. Changes can be made at WP:SIG if the community accepts them. ( H )  15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Marked as rejected. No one seems to support this.  Mango juice talk 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After 1.5 hours? By a person whose signature would be a subject of the policy? Stating that nobody supports it when I clearly did in 4 paragraphs at the very top of this page, as the first commenter? WTF? - Mark 16:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, Mark supports it. Anyone else? ( H )  16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Mark supports it. Still, there has been overwhelming disapproval here. Mango juice talk 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it standard to mark a policy as rejected without giving the community time to actually look at it? I just kinda assumed that something like 24 hours would be allowed to pass. I don't see how a WP:SNOW mark as rejection here is really helpful. If (as is likely) there is going to be a clear consensus against this, leaving the proposal open for 24 hours to allow a wide cross-section of people to express their opinion on it is not going to hurt. - Mark 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just replace the sigs with their usernames if they break the guidelines, like Tony does. It's fair, less time-wasting, and less ugly. Will (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with this proposal. While some signatures are annoying, the proper way to deal with it is to bring it up with the user, not create a blanket ban on any signature that is any fancier than the default one. Is the 100 characters the wikitext or how it is displayed? If it is display length, it will have little effect, very few sigs are that long. If it is wikitext, this is a little low. A link to my userpage Mr.Z-man takes up 26 charcters and I only have 8 characters in my username. Also, from Signatures: "If asking another user to change their signature, remember to remain polite." - replacing their sig with unsigned is not really polite. The part on this proposal about images seems like padding, these are already not allowed and Unicode characters are actually suggested by the guideline. Mr.Z-man 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like signatures with color does not mean that you should have the right to "fix" them. I for one consider twaeking another user's signature to be at the least highly uncivil (or how would you like someone else telling changing your clothes in public), and may even be treatable as a minor form of vandalism. It seems to me that the first thing that is needed is some discussion on what restrictions if any there should be on signatures. Then once a policy is in place (assuming that a consensus can be reached on this issue) we can work with those whose sigs violate it. In the meantime, I would leave people's sigs alone and let any excesses speak for themselves. --ems57fcva | Talk 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the ridiculousness of this proposal has already been covered very well, I will point out a practical use for a unique signature; it helps enormously with scanning a long talk page to find your own comments, seeing which sections you have contributed to. Same applies at AFD; very handy for seeing at a glance which debates I have already replied to. I hope this stays rejected. Adrian_M._H. 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "Find" feature in your browser does that much better than a distinctive signature. I just hit Command-F, type "EVula", and voila, I find my posts. EVula 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but since the Find command does not function in my preferred browser, I couldn't use it even if I wanted to. I'd rather scroll anyway when searching for a lot of instances. Nice idea though. Adrian_M._H. 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's always the problem that someone might refactor the page to remove the clutter caused by your large and unsightly signature. So on balance it might be a better idea to fix that browser of yours. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that comment is uncalled for. I am hardly in a position to contact the browser's developers and demand that it be fixed. I will politely request that you do not "refactor" other people's comments. Adrian   M. H.  11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Quiddity 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote for 8458 Limit custom signature length.
 * Sigh in dismay at User:Athaenara/Gallery.
 * Discuss at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, not in a out-of-way-corner here.


 * The first link should be 8458; bug: is the Buginese language Wikipedia. --bainer (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;) --Quiddity 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A very poor proposal! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, replacing a signed comment with unsigned would be grossly uncivil; if there is to be a substitution, then it should be with the the account alias. (Id est, my signature “SlamDiego&#8592;T” would be replaced with “User:SlamDiego”.)
 * Second, What does the proposer actually mean by “Unicode”? How will we know?  Should signatures really be in EBCDIC?  Wikipedia delivers this page to me as UTF-8!
 * Third, the reason that I started using a bit of subscript in my own signature was because I observed how useful it was to me when other editors would link their talk pages to a bit of super- or subscripted text. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rejected tag
Ok folks, there is a rather clear consensus on this page that this idea is rejected, why don't you people who are removing the rejected tag try to change the consensus to reject before removing the tag. ( H ) 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The objective wasn't to change the consensus — I am in agreement with the bulk of the opinion thus far expressed — but a proper consensus is formed or revealed over time, which this proposal was not given. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus exists now, that is clear. Yes, it can change over time but so can the tag. It is rejected now, if people change their minds that could change. This consensus is proper, it can get more proper, but that does not invalidate the existing one. ( H ) 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This project was created at 14:16 yester-day, and tagged as rejected at 16:05 — less than two hours later. Most possible supporters arriving during the tagging would have been convinced that the train had left the station.  We may each have our guesses as to what consensus is, but such guesses should be checked by discussion, and a 109 minute window of discussion is too short. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet more time has passed and consensus has not changed. With some ideas it is very clear early on that they have been rejected. This belongs as a proposal at WT:SIG. As I said before, if and when the existing consensus to reject this changes, then we can remove the tag, nothing is set in stone, we are not going to delete the page. Consensus can change. ( H ) 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've noted, that tag leads people who might otherwise write in support, to believe that discussion has effectively ended. And the issue here isn't whether consensus has changed, but whether it was ever properly gauged by this discussion. (Consensus is the prevailing attitude, including the attitudes of those who do not even know that there is discussion; discussion is a quick-and-dirty way to estimate it.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)