Wikipedia talk:Deletable signatures proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: We already have signature guidelines at Wikipedia: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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Your signature violates the guidelines at Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Here is a screenshot: . - Mark 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Looks plenty readable to me, perhaps you have a blurry monitor. (H) 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Wikipedia:Signatures guideline (SIG). --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 // ☯ // 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll spend all our time deleting people signatures and replcing them with  than creating an encyclopedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And on top of this, replacing with  is inappropriate: people will see that and think the user doesn't know to sign their posts, which is false.  Mangojuicetalk 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your signature kinda violates the guidelines at Wikipedia: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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, I suggest rejected. Changes can be made at WP:SIG if the community accepts them. (H) 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marked as rejected.  No one seems to support this.  Mangojuicetalk 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Okay, Mark supports it. Anyone else? (H) 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Mark supports it.  Still, there has been overwhelming disapproval here. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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←T 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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←T 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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←T 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected tag