Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

RfC: usernames in signatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following three questions concern the extent to which customized signatures should be required to display someone's full username, or an easily recognizable abbreviation/variant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Background

There have been several discussions concerning customized signatures which do not correspond to someone's username and the impact they may have on other users (for example).

Editors have expressed that the guidelines at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P (namely A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username and It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents) have proven ambiguous and are frequently ignored. While guidelines are not firm rules, they are intended as generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow, following common sense and absent a good reason not to. If a guideline can be ignored without reason, the consensus behind that guideline should be reconsidered and the guideline updated where necessary.

This RfC is to determine what consensus is around this subject, and its result should then be reflected in the language at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, up to and including removing the two bulletpoints.

This RfC does not concern stylized text or text in addition to the username.

Question 1

Should a customized signature be required to display someone's username in its entirety, without changes?

Notes:

• A response of "no" would mean that abbreviations, variations, and other names are permitted instead of the username.
• Per the scope of this RfC, an answer of "Yes" would still allow nicknames, variations, translations, or other names in addition to the username, as long as they are clearly separated.

Survey (Question 1)

• Support EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 01:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Specifically, there should be something that you can copy-paste into a {{ping}} template, and it should be obvious what part you have to copy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Strong support: There's a sliding scale here. I do think, say, having no spaces in your username but spaces for different words in your signature, or different capitalization in your signature and username, is acceptable. I basically support, though. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Drop the 'weak', I don't think "people can put spaces in their sig" is important enough that it's a fair trade for keeping confusing signatures that primarily serve to mark new editors as outgroup for not knowing what someone's called. Vaticidalprophet 02:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not to be an outlet for unlimited creative expression. Having the username displayed next to your comments be your username, not something else, aids in our purpose by enabling clearer communication. Therefore we should do it. This isn't the death of quirkiness on WP—there will still be plenty of room for creativity through additional text or formatting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per option 4 below. This is pointless policy creep that no one other than the self-appointed enforcers will read. And this comes from someone who has never had and will never have anything but the default signature. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Policy creep is bad because it makes our guidance longer and more complex and thus less accessible to newcomers. This proposal is actually the exact opposite, as it makes our guidance simple and direct, rather than trying to tease out a complex and blurry gray line about how close a signature has to be to one's username to be valid. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I suppose in my view, and again, this is someone without a custom signature so I don't have any strong opinions on them at all, I think the effort enforcing this guideline if it was strictly written would cause more disruption than the signatures themselves. I don't think we should write guidelines in a way that do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think bright lines are easier and less disruptive to enforce than gray areas. The community very clearly feels that there's some level at which misleading signatures are unacceptable, so there's going to have to be some enforcement no matter what. But it'll be a lot easier if it's just a clear-cut "your signature has to be your username". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. If there is a consensus that exact usernames should be displayed with comments, that's a software problem that needs amending by automatically doing this for all signatures present on talk pages (or, for example, just setting the four tildes to automatically do that before the signature or similar. There's also reasons not to do this - for example, people with secondary accounts should be allowed to display their main account name, or to even use the exact same signature, which this would prohibit. Furthermore, this does not include an allowance for any non-latin usernames, which people should be allowed to sign in latin characters if they so choose. There's too many issues with making this sort of thing policy instead of just using common sense (as TonyBalloni suggests below), but Question 2 is something that should definitely be considered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not It's no more difficult to copy-paste from the wikitext where a link to a user or user talk page is already required by current guidance, and VE doesn't work for talk pages anyway. We've allowed custom sigs which use nicknames for forever, and abbreviations of usernames go all the way back to the very beginning without major issue. If the allowance for some personality and customization causes a good-faith contributor to make even one more edit than would otherwise be made it's already made up whatever the slight cost in overhead. Further, many users contribute cross-wiki and use the same customized signature globally, are we really going to bite them when they come to this project over this? Which brings me to my next point, what will we do if someone refuses to change a signature? block? over this? that's ridiculous. And imagine all the arguments over edge cases, and time sucking ANI threads over this sillyness, and for what? Whatever slight benefits would accrue from this are massively outweighed by the costs. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not pointless policy creep. Acronyms, abbreviations, dropping numbers, etc are all fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If a change to a requirement would make a real, positive difference, it is not instruction creep. Clearly some editors disagree about whether there is a real, positive difference, but I think it is quite clear that if our goal is to build an encyclopedia, that this does more good than harm. Even if the change is relatively smaller than other changes that could be made in the talk page area, this would definitely make talk pages easier to jump in to for new users, and users on talk pages easier to interact with. We can talk about the auxiliary topics of software implementation and enforcement, but as the core of this question is whether this is an requirement that makes communication between editors just a bit smoother (the whole purpose of talk pages!), and I think the answer is clearly yes. As for specifics, I like what RoySmith said. — Goszei (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  My support is conditional on the idea that there is not a suitable technical implementation that would automatically accomplish the goal: having an always-shown name that can easily be recognized as a particular user, copied, and pinged (for new users, and anyone more experienced who wants that). User:Enterprisey/signature rfc drafting has intriguing ideas on the technical front, and the solution may come from there without the need for sigpolicy changes. I want to see some results before I change my support for this, though. — Goszei (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I encourage editors who do not see a problem to read Jorm's remarks in the "non-Latin script" thread above. I also recommend the newbie account above titled "A reader's perspective". The experiences described match strongly with my own, and so I implore those reading to reflect on their own start as well. As established editors, we are the few, the minority, who made it past the "kill points" that Jorm describes, of which signatures are evidently a major hurdle. At issue is not blatant disruption nor fun, it is potential editors who are silently and forever turned away. There is absolutely nothing more valuable to the continued improvement of the encyclopedia than the uptake of new editors. We are not acting like it.

[T]he number one - with a bullet - most confusing thing to any new user is the signature. Why is the signature different between these two people? Does that connote status, or permissions? What do the red ones mean? Are those moderators? What's "contribs"? Why is it at the end of the comment? Why isn't it called out more clearly? [...] This has an incredibly high kill value.

They're scanning for a signature to copy. Finding one is also incredibly difficult because in Wikitext Mode they're a blob of gobbledygook. So what they do now - always - is try to search for a User Name that they recognize.

It is at this point, nearly every time, that people quit. They just throw their hands in the air and walk away, never to return. It had a kill ratio of something like 97%. It's probably worse now.

So the tiniest of changes here - the absolute smallest of consistencies - will reduce that kill ratio by a lot. We need to be doing absolutely everything we can to reduce this kill point.

There is a problem, it has tangible, drastic, and negative effects on the encyclopedia, and we need to start fixing it. — Goszei (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Jorm's observations are interesting but, since he has aggressively refused to substantiate any of them, I don't see any reason to lend them any more weight than those of the thousands of editors who evidently have no difficulty coping with differently coloured text or the abbreviation of the word "contributions". – Joe (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I have aggressively said "I do not work there anymore." It's amazing how hard it is for you to accept that I do not have a login to the office wiki anymore, or that (since I haven't worked there in 6 years) that things have changed or gotten lost or deleted, or that corporate organizations do not just willy-nilly release research despite how "transparent" folk think they are. This is a deflection and a bullshit reason not to agree to something that is manifestly obvious once you are made aware of it.

You could assume good faith and my at my word and not question my professional integrity but that seems to be too hard for Wikipediana to do. Thanks for the aspersions, though! Jorm (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly we're in different professions, but in mine it's not professional to ask people to accept assertions if you can't produce evidence for them. Your claims aren't at all obvious; in fact it's pretty counter-intuitive that, if you afford the average new editor an ounce of intelligence, 97% of them would be so baffled by variation in signatures they would give up on communication entirely. I get that it's not your fault that you can't share the research that produced that surprising conclusion, but it's not reasonable for you and others to expect us to make decisions based on nonspecific 'studies' that we can't verify, assess the methodology of, or just, you know, read. Or to berate and swear at your fellow editors just for asking to see it, for that matter. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with an incredibly large scope and reach, and therefore an extremely diverse set of editors. This proposal does not account for them. Users with non-Latin usernames are the clearest example of how this proposal actually hurts a set of editors and I would argue communication overall. I am sure there are other examples of specific users who have specific reasons for their signature that ultimately benefit communication. The point is this proposal ignores the myriad of specific situations where the proposal would be harmful. This proposal which will have a slight benefit for many, but ignores the complexity of Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 talk 02:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Surely all of the concerns can be resolved via MediaWiki enhancements. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm lukewarm to exact name, as a default signature sort myself. In at least one other community I have dropped numbers and frequently people are referred to onwiki with a shortened name. --Izno (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too drastic. We have historically allowed editors to use customized signatures that allow for "abbreviations, variations, and other names", and the overwhelming majority of these have not posed any perceptible hindrance to collaboration. Just click or hover over the signature to see the full username. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per RoySmith and Sdkb RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We have come this far without this rule and there has not been any real disruption that I have seen. This is pointless policy creep in my opinion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• No Copied from above...This is not even remotely a problem. If you're ever unsure of someone's username, hover over their sig, which links to their full name. Or if you're on a talk page, you're using source editor anyway and can read the link. Or you use replylink, which does the job for you. Custom sigs are awesome, creative, funny, and make editing more enjoyable. At the end of the day, our editors edit because it is enjoyable and fun. Editors should in no way be forced to have boring sigs. The idea that sigs need to have ones full username presents problems for those who go by a real name or nickname, who want to create clever sigs, and whose names are long, among others. Wikipedia is already such a droll place, signatures allow people to express themselves. Let's keep signatures fun! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I believe that editors should have to include something that closely resembles their username or is a portion thereof, though I don't think that they should have to include the entire username as well, so long as a link to their user page is provided in their signature. It's not disruptive enough to warrant a new guideline being issued, in my opinion, though a more narrowly tailored version of this proposal may have earned my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A common problem with many usernames is that they are too long. This arises especially with new accounts as there are now millions of accounts and so most short names have been taken. Here's some recent examples: "Confusingweirdusername"; "The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth"; "Bất động sản Lê Hoàng Thanh"; "Curiousladywithsharpbrain"; "Anand Kumar Rawat (Rock Anand)". It is then natural and reasonable to abbreviate such long user names in sigs. Forcing them to be repeated in full would make matters worse by overloading the signatures, so making them more confusing rather than less. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• No (oppose). This has got to be one of the most pedantic, WP:CREEPy discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Shortening one's name is not a quirk or "creative expression", it's a routine part of everyday communication in Western culture and most other parts of the world. For example, like many editors, I edit under my real name, and sign with my first name, as I would anywhere else. The same logic is naturally extended to pseudonyms to establish a friendly tone. I also agree with Tony that this is completely unenforceable; are you seriously going to block people because you have to copy their username from the left side of the | instead of the right side if you want to ping them? – Joe (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose just to pick a random user - 春夏秋冬東西南北. While there is nothing wrong with this user using their username in their signature, if they wanted to use a English characters - perhaps of a legit sock redirect account to make it easier to communicate with English users I would not want to stop them at all, especially if the anchor actually goes to their page. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  As specifically called out in the proposal, nothing would stop the user from including a translation of their name as well - as long as the sig includes their actual username. Retswerb (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Retswerb: while I think that the actual username should indeed be linked to somehow I think that "displaying" it is unnecessary (e.g. that [[User:春の垢バン祭りを米国の陰謀と意味不明な事を言ったネトウヨたネトウヨ|RichEditor12]] should be fine, so long as "RichEditor12" isn't actually another user). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Yes, lengthy usernames, those would merit an exception. Non-Latin scripts have nothing to do with it though, and the proposals here create no problem at all with regard to them (though they do tend to act as a red herring). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Pointless instruction creep. As TonyBallioni notes this will just lead to self-appointed DefenderOfTheWiki-type enforcers wasting everyone's time. As long as a signature is not misleading or overly confusing, an abbrevation or variation is absolutely fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'll echo Pawnkingthree's comment just above which summarizes it quite well. Additionally, the software allows emojis as usernames and while they are no longer allowed, there are a couple of people who are allowed to retain those names under a grandfather clause (such as User:😂). We should want those editors to use human-readable signatures. Regards SoWhy 13:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The function of a signature is to identify who made a given comment, allow other editors to follow the conversation, and provide a means of contacting the editor. When an editor sees an edit in the watchlist or history and wants to find it on the talk page, they should be able to search on the editor's name; not having the editor's username in the signature makes that fail. The question does not concern stylized text or text in addition to the username. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• No I support editors being allowed to use their own guidance and judgement when it comes to signatures within guidelines, and that includes shortening or abbreviating ones name. I miss out the last two letters of my username in my signature, as a mild example, and as it falls within the guidelines I am doing nothing wrong. As per Joe Roe above, this option is mission creep of the worst kind. doktorb _words^deeds 16:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. A signature should not need to be an exact match. Using an abbreviation, an initialism or logical nickname should be acceptable. -- Calidum 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Pings are tricky enough for many of our editors: I don't want to name names but I have seen many a veteran (including our most active administrators) not being able to do them correctly. Those difficulties are increased for new editors, and increased even further when you can't just copy-and-paste someone's signature into the {{reply to}} template. I also personally prefer this to Q2 not because I'm a killjoy, but because it makes the guideline more impervious to gaming and lawyering. Q2 allows for greater variations in interpretations, which are ripe for exploitation. See also my comments during the drafting. I will also repeat what I have said below at Q2 in response to those saying this is the end of individuality –

  Those above who write about this as being some sort of thin end of the wedge where every editor is deprived of their individuality appear to be exaggerating. Editors would still be free to add whatever HTML markup they wish, be it bold text, italics, different fonts, superscript, subscript, or colour. That is not the purpose of this RfC.

  Sdrqaz (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It should be possibly to copy and paste a username from a signature in all cases. Nicknames are only obvious to those in the know, which is only ever going to be a small subset of even experienced editors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, although it is good practice to do so in most cases, and the connection to the real username should be clear. For some objections ("want to copy from the rendered page for pings"), there are some great technical tools like mw:Talk pages project/Replying or User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js that make this a non-issue. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Kusma: In my opinion, the editors that need this change the most (the new ones) are also the ones who wouldn't know how to install those gadgets and scripts. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: I'm currently hoping for the "Reply" feature to become the default so changing their preferences won't be necessary. But yes, new users don't know how to ping, and almost any non-standard signature is likely to cause difficulties for them (and Jorm says so). —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:CREEP, this seems excessive.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hell no. And we've said no to this many times before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @MjolnirPants: The perennial proposal you link to is about "personalized signatures (colored text, CSS, HTML, special characters, etc.)". This is emphatically not what this RfC is about. This discussion is about how usernames appear in signatures only. One could indeed, as I personally tend to do, strongly favor both personalized, colorful signatures and having full & unchanged usernames in the signature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

    You might want to go look through some of those past discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, first of all because the actual impact of such a requirement has not been assessed. How many Wikipedians would be required to change their sigs to meet this standard? I've no idea -- but I'd change mine to be non-conforming if this rule were to be adopted, because it's a really stupid rule. It's _inconvenient_, certainly, but as long as the sig links to the userpage, it's a trivial inconvenience. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't criticise people who perceive there to be a problem, and who want to do something about it, but I think that this will likely cause more problems than it solves. Custom sigs, and indeed non-English usernames, can cause all sorts of minor irritations. Some folk use colour combinations which don't comply with MOS:CONTRAST. Some folk (including some of the supporters above) use backgrounds which don't render properly on my smartphone browser (Chrome on an Android smartphone, viewing in 'Desktop' mode), so that I literally can't read their usernames unless I'm on my laptop. Some folk have actual usernames which consist purely of non-Latin characters which I wouldn't know how to say out loud or to type without copy/pasting (which is very fiddly on a smartphone). Some folk have sigs which don't match their usernames, and so it's not immediately obvious who they are when reading a discussion. All of these have the potential to cause a certain amount of inconvenience, and different people will register that inconvenience with varying amounts of annoyance. On the other hand, people get attached to their own, and other people's, signatures. Creativity and expression are good, fun things. I like how Prax has recently started changing her username to match the season or something else that's going on in her life - we've have Grinchidicae, Cupidicae, and I think Vaxxidicae and probably some others - they make me smile when I see a new one. Drawing a line under that sort of stuff and forcing people to comply with rigid guidelines will cause the people who are used to the current freedom of expression, and who like it, a certain amount of inconvenience, and they will register that inconvenience with varying amounts of annoyance. My feeling is that the annoyance and disruption that will be generated by changing the guidelines will be greater than the annoyance and disruption that is currently being caused, hence my opposition. I will note however that I'm about to go change my signature so that the space between 'Girth' and 'Summit' is shown, to make it easier for people to ping me if they are copy/pasting from my sig. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a drama magnet. We have no means by which to enforce any mandated change to any user's signature, so this policy creep will just cause fights that we cannot resolve. I also agree that if we're going to mandate a standard signature then it needs to be enforced by the software and not by community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. A link to User: and/or User talk: space is quite sufficient, and more accurate, for positive identification. Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: the last time that a signature that didn't contain a username caused me at least a full minute of confusion was—genuinely—less than 60 minutes ago. It's a problem for quickly searching in discussions, it's a problem to newcomers who try to ping or link based on the rendered signature text, and it's just weird. Signatures have been a drama magnet for well over a decade, but in the long-term such a change in policy would pay dividends in reduced time waste. I know a couple of signatures I quite like that don't follow these rules (including, on a technicality, Girth Summit's old one as they reference above), but they could be changed to abide by them with ease and no less of creativity or distinctiveness. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly support Oddly, I don't mind abbreviations of longer names, hence the mostly support, but I'm continually exceptionally confused by variations, translations, nicknames, weird fonts, et cetera. I just don't know how this would be enforced by users - agree with Ivanvector this would require a software change. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, I think this is already covered per Ivanvector's post below - signatures should make it easy for you to identify the user, which isn't always the case and has caused me the occasional accessibility issue. I'd support some sort of software change, I'm not convinced this is the correct change to make, but I'd support it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A user's full name is just a click away. Not a big deal. ~ HAL333 17:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've been at this almost 15 years and haven't once been tempted to change from the default. On the other hand, I have idly wondered how much bandwidth is taken up by downloading and rendering all the cool signatures to which other editors seem so attached. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where displayed usernames are anything but usernames. As a relatively new active editor I can definitely attest, as others already have, that seeing back and forth conversation with references to users who have something else as their signature is a hugely insider/outsider experience and lends itself to exactly the kind of alienation that Jorm has described well above. Retswerb (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  A lot of email clients will show a display name (when provided) instead of the email address (which for Internet mail is in the form local-part@domain). (The format of the underlying email header is "display name <email address>".) Some email clients allow users to configure a signature that is added automatically at the end of the message, which is essentially what MediaWiki's signature feature is based on. MediaWiki differs of course by not providing a direct method to view the username: you can look at the history, but you have to manually find the right entry; or you can examine the wikitext source, assuming the user has complied with the guidance to include a link to their user page or user talk page. isaacl (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's fair regarding email display names, but the same clients that show the display name also are typically able to auto-fill the actual address when the display name is entered, thereby ensuring a seamless experience - unlike what we have here. Also relevant, as referenced above, is the back-and-forth which is present here (and not in email) which involves signatures and usernames intermixed in a given discussion on a page. Retswerb (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I discussed the desirability of the MediaWiki software providing better tools/interfaces, including auto-completing user names when notifying users. In general, having a display name is pretty common since usernames have to be unique and so users may want to present a more convenient moniker. Think of any website/Internet service that has you login with an email address or a username but lets you specify a different name for display (Facebook, Instagram, Skype, etc.). However they are designed with this distinction in mind and so the software handles it mostly transparently to the users.

  Regarding back and forth, that happens all the time in email when the recipients reply with quotes from the previous email, and in fact the use of nested lists in English Wikipedia conversations mimics the indenting convention in email. Identifying who said what in email can be tricky as the reply chain gets longer. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the included link(s) are perfectly sufficient for {{ping}} purposes. — csc^-1 17:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as others have said, WP:CREEP. If I were to support this proposal I'd need to see clear evidence of abuse of the flexibility of signatures that isn't dealt with by the current system, and would be dealt with by the new system. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, not displaying your username in your custom signature makes communication needlessly complex. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I am not really sure I understand the point. As long as 'wdijubwif838434XXXxxX' is a valid username, I can't see the difference this makes anyways. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support, mismatches between usernames and signatures was one of the hardest things I ran into when I was first trying to learn Wikipedia and contribute to discussions. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} {Talk|Contributions} 14:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose—A solution in search of a problem. Clicking the link in someone's signature to their userspace should not be cause for confusion. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support but prefer option 2 Seddon ^talk 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: My issue is with the words "without changes". I change my initial character to lowercase, a change I think is harmless. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support – You sign something to identify yourself. It defies logic to allow people to sign things in another name. It makes it more difficult to use the ReplyTo template, and impacts new users more than experienced users, making this place feel even more strange and frankly unwelcoming. If you want something to personalise, to reflect you as an individual, we have user pages. Domeditrix (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The talk page project at WMF will make enforcing signatures easier, see mw:New requirements for user signatures and it is only around the corner. The problem here is that when the guideline was first implemented there was not really an method to enforce it, which I did point out in that discussion. En.wp was ahead of the curve on this one and the guideline should not be changed because of that. If anything, other wikipedias will have to make an decision on signatures at some point.--Snævar (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support.--Vulphere 11:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've seen no evidence that 97% of new users are put off purely because some editors use nicknames, and find it very difficult to believe. There's lots of confusing markup when you begin editing Wikipedia, but the idea that someone who can work out how to use {{ping}} or {{u}} cannot fathom someone's username is, frankly, ludicrous. If this is a genuine problem then the solution is obviously to improve the Mediawiki software, and there are in fact already several solutions available. Moreover, if this was to become policy, enforcing it would cause far more disruption to the project. If the cure is worse than the disease you should just live with it. nagualdesign 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -- given my signature says "Rockstone" but my username is "Rockstone35" (because Rockstone was taken when I registered this account back in April 2007). -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need this rule. Also, I can think of a user who would be harmed by it. Cardamon (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I came to this discussion as someone who would like to see the requirement to have the full username in the signature (with due exceptions for long usernames) implemented. I still believe that its benefits (mainly in usability and editor retention) would outweigh its costs (mainly in freedom of expression, though this is really minor given that colorful and creative custom sigs would be still allowed and, if it were up to me, encouraged) if it were the norm. However, I do agree that the potential disruption caused by the process of implementing this norm (instruction creep, quibbles over whether signatures do or do not conform to the new guideline, angry editors leaving the project over such quibbles) may tip the balance into making it a net negative. Sooner or later the whole talk page system will inevitably be modernized (rendering these issues moot), but until then it may be better to just leave this be. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there is no valid reason that the name you display should not exactly match your actual user name. If you want to be called something, then make THAT your user name. --Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Otherwise, what's even the point of signatures. Sandstein 19:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Genuinely disruptive signatures are already covered by policy.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks like WP:CREEP. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The purpose of signatures is to identify the user posting a comment. Experienced users may not have a problem with seeing something other than the exact username, but some new users undoubtedly would be confused by it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support 04:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. Custom signatures did annoy me, so that's why I installed User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter to standardise them when I view pages. I see no reason to provide an extra "you broke some rule you probably didn't know about" hurdle to new users. --LukeSurl ^t c 14:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not in heaven or hell; this is way too creepy. Sometimes users call me Chic instead of Chicdat because it's shorter, and sometimes I sign my username as Chic instead of Chicdat. No one objects to that. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Why do people have to have display names (signatures) different from their usernames? After all, you can choose your own username, and request changes. It makes discussions more difficult to follow while serving what purpose? Jokes? I prefer something easy to ctrl-f or recognize in my watchlist/page history. I must admit, signatures of even longtime contributors such as Praxicidae or JzG seem unnecessarily obfuscated to me, and I would have forgotten those examples but for being reminded earlier in this page. Even minimally altered signatures such as Doktorbuk -> doctorb create a layer of difficulty that is completely unnecessary. They require readers to consider whether these are in fact two separate people, and remember the association. Yes, you can mouse over, follow the link, or view the source wikitext, but that's an impediment for keyboard-first users and slow computers. This may be a small hurdle, but it's still unneeded. And for signatures that embed usernames within other text, such as Piotrus, I'd prefer the username be clearly distinguished. I'd almost advocate for removing the entire custom signature feature but for the recommendation that non-Latin script usernames be accompanied by courtesy romanizations or unique pseudonyms. I could also get behind a Mediawiki feature that displays the plain username of every editor after their comments, though that'd be a bit incongruous with the wikitext source editing ethos. Maybe I'm biased as a wikignome towards simplicity, but I also I believe myself to be a netizen with a relatively high tolerance to annoying technical minutiae. After all, I'm here, and Wikipedia selects for those qualities, especially with the old-fashioned source editor and required familiarity with markup language in order to participate on talk pages. To welcome new users, we could use fewer of these stumbling blocks. --Anon423 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - a signature should always unambiguously identify the user, and per Thryduulf, and if a username is so large or weird as to disrupt talk pages, then the problem is the username, not the signature - Nabla (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, I'm not convinced there's a serious enough problem to warrant a policy change, or that the supposed bright line suggested here would actually cause fewer hassles than it would prevent. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The purpose of the signature is to identify who made a statement or comment. If the username is not easily recognizable then it becomes difficult for even long-time contributors, much less new users, to determine who is "speaking." — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support on the condition that capitalization changes are allowed. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 00:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support Customised signatures are pure vanity and serve only to make navigating Wikipedia more confusing for ordinary people.Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Nagualdesign and Stifle. GAB^gab 18:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I struggle to see how harassing users about their signatures improves editor retention, if anything it does the opposite. W42 21:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Question 2

If there is a consensus against Question 1 (if signatures are not required to display the username in its entirety, without changes), should signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to?

This would disallow signatures with minimal or no resemblance to the username, for example signing another name entirely, but would allow shortened names and variations as long as the connection would be obvious to most new users. If you answer "Yes", please indicate whether there should be an exception for usernames written in a non-Latin script, following WP:NLS.

Survey (Question 2)

• Yes, with exception. NLS usernames should still be welcomed, but I would like to see some sort of regulation or clarification (perhaps through a comment) of NLS signatures. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with exception. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as policy creep. If someone is behaving disruptively with their signature, they can be blocked or otherwise sanctioned already. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  They can be blocked or otherwise sanctioned already. Not usually without some inordinate amount of drama for what should be common sense but which clearly isn't sufficiently common for everyone. Izno (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  WP:DE is a guideline. If someone is being disruptive, we sanction them. If they aren't, we don't. There's no need at all for a policy on signatures. I don't really get the point of custom signatures, but I also don't get the point on rules regulating them. It's really not that big a deal. By creating more rules that people are not going to read, we just create more frustration on the end of both admins and people with slightly against policy signatures. That is more disruptive than the signatures themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  "I don't want a policy at all" is not in the cards in the context of the proposal, but I guess it helps explain your decision making. Izno (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support guidance so long as the exception above is included, and so long as it is "common sense" and not overly codified as to what qualifies as "obvious". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. I don't think making this policy is a good idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per the rationale that I expressed in response to Question 1. Failing a Q1 requirement for something you can copy-paste, a signature should at least have some clear correspondence with the username. If an exception for NLS means that User:力 can have a signature without "力" in it, or if it means that User:Hassan can have a signature that only has "حسان", then I oppose such an exception. — Goszei (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support here. Your signature should have some text in it that looks like your user name. --Izno (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Even for an experienced editor, it tends to be very confusing. Usernames in signatures are for communication with other, not for self-expression. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with emphasis on the "easily" and "new user" parts, and the exception for NLS signatures (although I'd love it if they had both the original username and a romanization). I've been here for a decent chunk of time and I still get confused. Allowing signatures that are wildly different from usernames is, to use some programming-speak, a feature that doesn't pull its weight. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to option 1. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with exception. It's inconvenient when (mostly new) users choose a signature that is completely different from their username. However, minor alterations to the username such as using initials instead of full name, shortening the name, etc. seems reasonable and not bothersome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is really vague. We already have rules against disruptive or confusing signatures that cover any case that would actually cause a problem. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm afraid this change will likely backfire and actually result in more drama. Many longstanding editors use customized signatures that are potentially allowable under this proposed wording, but they are borderline enough that there will inevitably be disputes about whether they indeed are. Surely there are more pressing matters facing the encyclopedia that we could be discussing instead. We have already gotten this far as a project with the status quo on signatures; it's not clear to me why suddenly we have decided a change is desperately needed. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, to clarify, I'm referring to the "status quo" in terms of historical practice. As the RfC mentions in the opening statement, the wording of the current guideline does seem to be ambiguous and has led to recent drama. I would say removing those two bullet points mentioned in the RfC would probably bring the policy closer to a description of historical practice. Essentially, in my view, the cost of the administrative effort required to force an editor to change their signature is not worth the benefit of avoiding whatever short-lived confusion is caused by the signature in the wide majority of cases. Mz7 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Shamelessly the same as above because I feel exactly the same... This is not even remotely a problem. If you're ever unsure of someone's username, hover over their sig, which links to their full name. Or if you're on a talk page, you're using source editor anyway and can read the link. Or you use replylink, which does the job for you. Custom sigs are awesome, creative, funny, and make editing more enjoyable. At the end of the day, our editors edit because it is enjoyable and fun. Editors should in no way be forced to have boring sigs. The idea that sigs need to have ones full username presents problems for those who go by a real name or nickname, who want to create clever sigs, and whose names are long, among others. Wikipedia is already such a droll place, signatures allow people to express themselves. Let's keep signatures fun! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, editors using smartphones and other devices that can't hover are a large and growing group. For readers, going by stats.wikimedia.org, mobile web displaced desktop during 2020 as the most common client type. (Edit: Just tap and hold.) Going to the source editor is time-consuming, and for new editors who aren't good at parsing talk pages, an undue burden as well. DiscussionTools and reply-link are certainly solutions, but won't be ready for widespread use for a little while. I totally agree with what you're saying about custom sigs, and they can remain just as playful, formatting-wise, while including the username: yours is a prime example. For an editor who has a different name, they can change their username, abbreviate or shorten it, or include a preferred name in a larger font along with their username in a smaller font. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Then editors can do what I do on mobile: click on their name, which must link to their userpage, which one should do anyway when they encounter a new name. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  You can also tap-and-hold to view a link - or if you browser doesn't allow it, it should. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Heh, my version of Firefox Mobile doesn't - that would certainly do it. I guess I'll strike that bit. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a narrowly tailored way to balance the concerns between signatures not matching up with a username and also allowing for some degree of nicknaming and creative expression. I understand concerns of WP:CREEP, though I think this would be a way to improve the encyclopedia that would not harm our accessibility to newcomers. This proposal is rather sensible. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This creates an impossible requirement as nothing is "easily recognizable to a new user". Talk pages are mostly incomprehensible to new users, especially if they try to edit them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until someone can come up with an actual example of this being a problem that can't be dealt with under the current guideline. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the NLS issue which I don't think should require an "exception". — xaosflux ^Talk 11:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with clarity - This should be obvious, and proving that someone is being problematic enough under the current setup is far different to requiring it to be clear. I do agree that there are issues with vagueness here, and were this passed would want some clarifying language to be added. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Signatures should not be a random string of characters entirely unrelated to the username. -- Calidum 17:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support; neutral with regards to non-Latin script. The goal of signatures is to tie your comment to your account, and passing that responsibility to other editors by asking them to hover over your links or tap-and-hold them does not feel right at all. I am sometimes baffled by signatures, and I have made a handful of edits and have been here for a while. Imagine what it's like for a new editor (even if that was years and years ago). Those above who write about this as being some sort of thin end of the wedge where every editor is deprived of their individuality appear to be exaggerating. Editors would still be free to add whatever HTML markup they wish, be it bold text, italics, different fonts, superscript, subscript, or colour. That is not the purpose of this RfC. As far as I'm concerned, this is merely enforcing the existing guideline that has been regularly flouted. For those who have said that the existing guideline is enough and can be enforced if necessary, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068 § User:DeNoel's sig. The editor in question eventually renamed themself, but that kerfuffle was closed with no direct action and effectively relied on the goodwill of that editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  My main concern is that this RfC is being presented as a means to avoid the drama that took place at that ANI thread, but the most realistic outcome if this proposal passes is that we will have even more ANI threads where longstanding editors will have their signatures questioned regarding whether they are "easily recognizable to a new user", and there will be even more confusion. The best solution for the encyclopedia is a cautious toleration of quirky signatures. If they are truly confusing, then you can ask the user to change it, but if they don't want to, then I would just drop the issue and go back to writing articles. There is no need to threaten people (be it experienced editors or new editors) with blocks or sanctions over something as comparatively trivial as this. Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is an attempt at formulating what is allowed and what is not. A number of editors would like clarification on what is allowed and what isn't, or recent kerfuffles have shown how cloudy the threshold seems to be. I'd prefer having something like this being discussed than simply the unnuanced section "discussion not needed" below. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I understand that concern, and that is one of my (two) reasons for supporting Q1 – it provides a cleaner, more objective standard that is less open to interpretation and lawyering if those disputes flare up. I agree it's a relatively trivial matter when our ultimate goal is trying to create an encyclopaedia, but if it really is so trivial editors who refuse to adhere to consensus need to think if their individuality is important enough to maintain another barrier of entry to newer editors. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support. Option 1 is preferable, but if that doesn't pass then this is the second-best option. The point of a signature is to unambiguously attribute your comment to the person who made that comment, anything that obscures that connection (intentionally or otherwise) hampers usability and decreases accountability. Also per Sdrqaz. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• "Easily" is a bit too vague for my taste. —Kusma (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose With same rational as for question one, and because of Non-latin script issues. ( [WP:CREEP] )Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see several comments here about non-Latin usernames but I don't understand why that would be an issue at all - these proposals would just require the non-Latin component to be displayed without prohibiting any Latin additions (e.g. "דוגמא (Example)") - which is exactly what best practice currently recommends. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose What, exactly, is this suppose to accomplish? Making pings easier? If you're pinging someone, their proper username is right there in the edit window. Making editors accountable for things that new users complain about at the pump, teahouse, or one of the drama boards? Not only are those complaints almost entirely spurious, I've yet to see any confusion over the displayed name versus the username. Even if there was any such confusion, it's fairly simple to sort it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on the same grounds I oppose Option 1. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but this is already adequately covered by WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and does not require any change to the guideline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I supported the first proposal. Such loose wording is worse than no wording, as it will not be enforced or taken into account but will produce additional drama and more words. — Bilorv (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. If someone has a Latin-script username and wants to use a romanization of it, or translation of it, or for that matter unrelated name, they can lead with that and put their username in parentheses after it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this policy creep. If someone's username is an issue, it can be dealt with individually. ~ HAL333 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with common sense exceptions as identified above. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as less preferable than Option 1 but still better than status quo. Retswerb (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, policy creep/solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per my previous response. — csc^-1 17:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice to option 1. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• No this is hopelessly vague WP:CREEP. I won't rehash mny earlier rant but this will cause way more problems then it solves. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons above. If a username or signature is extremely disruptive, policy already exists to resolve that issue.
• Support as a fall back for Q1. Lets make things as easy as possible for newer users. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} {Talk|Contributions} 14:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose—How hard is it to just hover over or click on a link in somebody's signature? I've never found pseudonyms confusing, not even when I first started, and I have been a registered user for thirteen years now. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hover effects don't work on mobile devices and afaik depend on certain gadgets being installed currently. Jorm (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support this isn't policy creep. This is a discussion to change policy. Policy should not be immutable. Lets make it easier for new users. Seddon ^talk 00:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I don't see how this solves the issue at all. People will WikiLaywer their way out of any substantive changes to their signatures whatsoever, and admins won't feel it necessary to force the issue if they think somebody is excessively bending the rules. Which is why I strongly support option 1, but do not support this. Domeditrix (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Same rationale as my oppose vote above, but in addition this proposal is far more ambiguous, which would undoubtedly lead to even more unnecessary drama. nagualdesign 20:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Status quo makes things needlessly difficult. I am not aware of any other website that allows users to display a "signature" (or analogue) that is completely different from their actual usernames. JBchrch talk 10:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Off the top of my head: Steam and Tumblr both come to mind. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would note that the whole concept of usernames creates exactly this sort of disconnect. An editor could release national secrets on WP and never be held accountable, under the right circumstances. And at the risk of stuffing beans up my nose, I'll that this doesn't require the faintest shred of technical know-how, beyond that of a typical person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's pretty common on websites and Internet services, because usernames are unique by design, but people's names aren't, so typically they want to present a more convenient moniker. (Think of all the sites that have you login with an email or login name, but let you configure a display name that gets used everywhere.) The difference of course is that those sites and services are designed to support monikers and so they deal with it in a way to make it mostly transparent to their users. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't need this rule. Also, I can think of an editor who would be harmed by it. (That was the same oppose as above, because the same reasons apply.) Cardamon (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that implementing the proposal in question 1 (full usernames in signatures) would be sensible but perhaps inadvisable given the disruptive potential of the process of implementing that requirement (see my answer above). The proposal here in question 2 would be less effective in increasing usability, but it would be much more disruptive given the inherent vagueness of easily recognizable to a new user. The last thing we want are endless quibbles over signatures, and this proposal seems to invite precisely that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As per option 1, otherwise what's the point of signatures. Sandstein 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Sandstein. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support and for non-Latin characters, I think they should include some sort of Latin character name/abbreviation for us to be able to refer to them using characters available on our keyboards (as English-language editors). 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• Oppose unenforceable unless we effectively implement question 1, which I have already opposed. --LukeSurl ^t c 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to Question 1. As someone with a non Roman script username, I don't display Roman transliteration in my signature, but have no problem with others doing so. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Hey, there's a gadget to hide custom signatures for new editors at WP:VPIL right now. Isn't that better than forcing editors to do this creepy signature thing? 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anything goes, then anything goes. Abuses (say changing sig constantly) should be dealt as disruptive behaviour, there is no need to codify that to the least detail. - Nabla (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Opposing Q1 does not necessarily indicate an attitude of "anything goes." Per Goszei's comment above, if a user with WP:NLS characters in the username (e.g. a mythical User:忍) is allowed to have a signature with only Latin characters (e.g. "Shinobu" or "Heart-under-Blade") that would make it difficult at a glance to properly {{reply to}} that person. If the exception for NLS characters means that someone with NLS characters must use those characters, then I agree with that exception. I would like clarification of the exception for NLS characters as written in Q2. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Question 3

If there is consensus in favor of either question 1 or question 2, should they apply to all signatures, or only those which were not in use prior to this RfC.

This is included because some have argued that users who have used the same signature for an extended period should be "grandfathered" in (i.e. given an exception).

Survey (Question 3)

• All signatures. I don't see a point on not having all signatures needing to follow any new policy that comes into effect; it would benefit everyone for the same reasons as signatures after this RfC. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 01:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, this intends to also signify no grandfather clause. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• All signatures, no grandfather clause. If you've been around for long enough to be grandfathered in, you've been around for long enough to know better. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All signatures, per WP:Equality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Grandfather clause since literally no one except the people who want to enforce it are going to read this page, I don't think its fair to bother people about something they don't realize exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  "But I didn't know about it" is rarely sufficient to avoid enforcement, which comes after warnings anyway. Besides which, more generally an RFC is the neutral mechanism for community notification of discussion. RFCs potentially divisive also advertise on CENT, VPPRO/VPPOL, and elsewhere. It's not fair for anyone to have text in a guideline which is not actually supported by consensus, if in fact the text in question does not have consensus. Izno (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• All - if the goal is truly to make talk pages easier to read and recognize who people are talking to, then any support for a grandfather clause directly contradicts that. You either apply this to everyone, and thus succeed in making them easier to use, or you use a grandfather clause and have changed virtually nothing. Maybe making it apply to everyone would make it clear how many people are "silent opposition" (which even if this is centralized will be an issue) to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. A grandfather clause is directly counter-productive to the goals of Question 1 and Question 2, if implemented, and it would also be simply unfair. — Goszei (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All as much as I oppose the above policies, they should be applied consistently and fairly. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Grandfather clauses are the worst. (Consider how long Wikipedia will stand as an institution.) --Izno (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All - This is the only one of the three questions I'm registering an opinion on for the time being. This started with an ANI thread in which the wording of our guidelines, which are completely ignored by so many users, were being used to pressure someone to change their signature. Guidelines should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. If they can be ignored at will for no reason by some people while they're strictly enforced with others, something is wrong. Imagine the experience of a newbie being told to do something on a page where you can see many people doing the exact same thing without being told to change. If the guideline has fallen out of step with consensus, it should be updated, but it should apply to everyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. Grandfathering adds too much complexity. Keep it simple. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All While I loathe the idea of going up to someone who has had the same sig for 10 years and telling them it is suddenly not okay we can't have a special class of users that this rule has not applied to. For this reason I have opposed 1 and 2 but support ALL for this question. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Narrow Grandfather Clause per TonyBallioni. Additionally, it might actually be minorly disruptive for people who are widely recognized by their current signature to suddenly have to switch. In my mind, this should be a forward-looking guideline for new signature changes; I would support a clause that prohibits changes to be made to signatures that do not bring the signature in line with the guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All per WP:SOP: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All provided there is a long transition period - I don't want to see a bunch of people getting blocked for violations right away. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All, per the Prophet: If you've been around for long enough to be grandfathered in, you've been around for long enough to know better. We already have issues with people trying to divide the community into the regulars and the newbies, akin to separating the wheat from the chaff. We don't need to write that approach into policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All signatures, although users should be given a reasonable period in which to change if required. Because editing levels vary significantly, the changeover period should be expressed in terms of a number of signed comments (obviously excluding sandbox tests of a new signature). Also, once again I agree with Sdrqaz. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All If we're going to enforce strict signature rules, we should enforce them uniformly. Also, I support a longish transition period for everbody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• All I hope that the proposals above do not pass, but if they do, they should apply to everyone equally. There will inevitably be a period of disruption when it is implemented, and I expect that we will probably lose a significant number of long-term productive editors when over-enthusiastic policy enforcers start dragging people to ANI to force them to comply, but if people want this change badly enough then we'll just have to deal with that when it happens; better that, than a permanent situation of new users getting annoyed that older users can do something that they can't. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• All - after a reasonable implementation and education period, any changes to this guideline must apply equally to all users. If I have to look up when a user created their account (which is logged) and when they last updated their signature (which is not logged) in order to determine whether enforcement is required, enforcement is not going to happen at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• All I view this as an accessibility issue, meaning that any changes must apply to everyone. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. All editors are equal. Grandfather clauses should only exist where a clear inconvenience would result otherwise. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• All Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• All, absolutely. Those who have been around longer should set an example of following policy, not be excepted from it. Retswerb (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Grandfather clause. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• All - Enforcing this any other way sounds like a nightmare of its own right. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• All, no grandfather clause. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} {Talk|Contributions} 14:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• All, notwithstanding my aforementioned opposition to both proposals. And frankly, even if it were to pass, it won't be actively enforced by very many administrators. Ain't nobody got time for that. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• All Seddon ^talk 00:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• All —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• All.--Vulphere 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. Rules apply to all users. Sandstein 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• All. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• All 04:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• All. Obvious ly they may keep the previous sig, with full name added. - Nabla (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• All signatures should comply with any changes to signature policies or guidelines. A grace period would necessarily be required where someone with a non-compliant signature must be notified on their talk page and given a period of time to comply. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (usernames in signatures)

User:Enterprisey/signature rfc drafting has some interesting ideas. The gadget looks like a nice idea, and the romanization preference looks good. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 01:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Mkay, So, this is evidently going to be fairly controversial. I'll drop in my short 2 cents: A signature is intended to be something that all can identify you as. That's the entire point of sigs. I'm going to take back my previous comment, and say that it is an idea that could work, and I'm not going to object to it, but I don't think it's the best solution. It's fairly complicated, for a simple problem. I don't see why people cannot put their "nicknames" or variations into parentheses, and have their usual, pingable usernames in "normal" text. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who, like me, had trouble understanding this technical intervention, the idea is to effectively install User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter (the signature part) for new users by default and allow a toggle for everyone. All users sign both a custom and basic signature and hide whichever one you don't want to see. This would be helpful to new users who may be confused by some customized signatures, but I think there are an awful lot of people who like customization as long as it's "within reason". Sorting out that "within reason" is part of what this RfC is doing. And as you/we've said on Discord (where we're talking about it while posting here for anyone not in Discord :) ), there is room for sorting out where consensus is while at the same time exploring technical means to improve user experience. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the gadget/removing sig customization. (That is: I think the gadget would functionally serve to remove sig customization, considering most new editors don't play with their settings much.) I might be more interested if it were opt-out for everyone, including new editors. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe custom-HTML ("fancy") signatures should be prohibited in general (WP:SIGRANT). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a whole other 3+ question RfC that could be had - on how to define fancy. I tend to agree with you - I think anything other than muted colors that have some distinct purpose, as well as bold and italics, should likely be prohibited - they serve little to no purpose and can make things harder to see where to click for people. But questions would involve boxes, shadows, colors (and which ones), bold/italics, super/subscript, etc... but I'd definitely support limiting the forms of custom HTML that could be used to reasonable things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear (in re to Free). Izno (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ToBeFree (mainly due to the extra markup in source editor), but if this RfC doesn't pass I see zero chance of that proposal passing either. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might have a better chance of passing. It doesn't affect the experience of any current account. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I assume you're talking about the draft RfC, which is fair. I was talking more about ToBeFree's ideal world where all HTML markup would be deprecated from username. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah... I can't read, sorry about that. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No harm done: happens to the best of us! Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with prohibiting html in general. Without it it becomes difficult to impossible to make even beneficial changes to one's signature even with the intent of making it easier for other editors to reach you. 05:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• No symbols - especially math symbols that are not available on all keyboards. It is very possible that "Ed A" recalls something important that "Ed *&%#" contributed but can't recall the specifics and would simply like to ask that editor for input. How on earth do you find them in search, especially if it's a symbol you don't have access to on your keyboard? This particular RfC doesn't explicitly address the symbol sig issue but I think it merits a serious visit in our user naming conventions. Atsme likes fun sigs ^{Tell me 'bout it} 13:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It occurred to me that my current signature is indeed customized by one letter, and that it actually improves readability with the default sans-serif body text font (since an uppercase i is indistinguishable from a lowercase l, and I think there may have been an instance where someone thought it was a 1) without impeding the ability to copy the signature for communication purposes, since the MediaWiki software will automatically uppercase the first letter for links to user names. isaacl (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding users copying a signature instead of a user name from the wiki text source to generate a notification: the typical use case is when you are mentioning another user and you want to let them know in a lighter-weight manner than a post to their talk page. Once you realize signatures aren't always the same as user names, it isn't a big deal to click on a link to the user page or user talk page and copy it from there, but it's not necessarily evident for those less tech savvy. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• this is a cool sig → —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Need for this RfC

Position: The questions stated at the rest of this RfC are not relevant to the content or administrative work of the encyclopedia. Users should use their judgement as to what constitutes a disruptive signature. In extreme cases where there is consensus a signature is disruptive, administrators may take necessary action.

• Support this discussion isn’t useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• [Moved this "option 4" down here after this was added along with the other subsections]. @TonyBallioni: Then oppose. Or abstain. Or do something other than disrupt this RfC to make a point trivializing something lots of people clearly care about. We have guidelines which are randomly ignored. If they don't reflect consensus, they should be removed. If they do, there should be a good reason for ignoring them. If you think they're irrelevant to this project, nominate this guideline for deletion. A draft of this RfC had input from many people before being posted here. Let's let this play out, shall we? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: I would like to establish consensus that the community as a whole doesn't care at all about this, which I believe to be the case. You can't do that without an explicit option. There are any number of reasons the above could fail. Putting it forward that this is explicitly not a concern that the community has would be useful. The above failing won't do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well, if you insist... Strong oppose, considering that signing up to Wikipedia is basically a hazing ritual ("why are all new editors UPE or socks?" because we immediately drive away people who aren't either being paid to do it, or have already done it before), and making it not a hazing ritual through ways like "getting rid of the fact people who look like they're called X are actually called Y and you mark yourself as an outgroup member for calling them X" is only a good thing. Vaticidalprophet 02:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Everyone making this about "the poor new users" - we were all new users, we survived, this hasn't been an issue in the past twenty years except among experienced users who have nothing better to do than drag people to ANI over something harmless. I use a simple signature (hardly custom, just a contribs link), but I don't see the point to making all these policies and endless arguments. If someone really struggles to understand signatures - and can't be taught - I think it's likely they would end up leaving anyway, voluntary or not. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • we were all new users, we survived It took me about six years of infrequent IP editing, responded to with the grace and magnanimity registered editors are so known for giving to unregistered ones, to even create an account, and about four years after creating an account to become an active editor. "We get new editors to stick around...a decade after they first take a interest in Wikipedia" doesn't sound like a shining example of "we all survived being new". Vaticidalprophet 02:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • So? I hardly think adding more policies and restrictions will help new editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• This is disruptive Update: struck after Tony moved it to discussion. Thanks. - Tony has edit warred to reinstate this section after I moved it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I intend this as a valid option to an recently started RfC that was excluded. You moved my post, which is against WP:TPO. I restored it as moving it is against the guidelines. If you wish to discuss more, feel free to take it to my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you feel that anyone can just edit existing RfCs and then edit-war to ensure their "option" (or, in this case, a WP:POINT which just challenges the RfC itself in the most dismissive way) is prominently positioned? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
      • If you wish to discuss this, please do it on my talk page, which is what should have been done before moving it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Meh I agree that software or script/gadget solutions are better than just making a policy that's going to be broken and lead to more wasting of time to try to enforce. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My comment was intended to go here, and there's no prohibition on suggesting alternative options in RfCs or adding a "do nothing" option when one isn't presented. What's disruptive is trying to own the RfC and stifle an easy way for participants to express their desire to see no changes at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No objection to a "status quo" option, or even another reasonable option. The problem is Tony's presentation here functions as just a dismissive "no" to existing questions 1+2. People seem to think I have a very strong opinion on these questions. This whole thing started because people with lots of ANI defenders ignore certain guidelines while new users and those without sufficient defenders get pressured into abiding by them. If there's consensus for something to be a guideline, it should act like a guideline (that is, be followed unless there's a good reason not to). I've no problem with removing these from the guideline if there's no consensus for them. I would think that anyone who finds complaints about signatures to be a waste of time and energy would embrace the opportunity to do away with the basis of those complaints. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Rhododendrites: people with lots of ANI defenders ignore certain guidelines while new users and those without sufficient defenders get pressured into abiding by them exactly and changes to this or any other guideline aren't going to fix that, in fact CREEP usually makes this problem worse. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This section is fundamentally equivalent to opposing all of the changes suggested in Questions 1, 2, and 3 (i.e. supporting the status quo). It doesn't make sense to make a new section, especially with such a dismissive tone. Let's try to be productive and disagree peacefully. — Goszei (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with Goszei, Rhod, et al. This should be moved to the discussion section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note: @Sdkb, Goszei, Berchanhimez, Vaticidalprophet, Rhododendrites, and Elli: moved this back to discussion after talking to Rhododendrites (but sub-sectioned since it had enough comments.) Like I mentioned on his talk page, I'm pretty nervous about this becoming a updated guideline that doesn't have community consensus just because most people who don't care don't comment, and I think the eventual end to any update of this policy is new users being overzealous in enforcing it, being annoying, and getting blocked (or having it contribute to a block.) That being said, if people want to have the discussion, and there are valid ways to address opposition to it as policy creep, I don't mind doing it in a way that makes everyone happy. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• We are perfectly capable of handling this on a case by case basis instead of a sweeping rule that will bother dozens or hundreds of editors whose signature has never caused a problem. That being said this is a perfectly valid proposal, just not one I think should pass. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Anyone who finds this unnecessary can oppose or abstain. Obviously (from reading the discussions above and what led to them) there are editors who ask for clarity and there have been situations where clarity might have prevented escalation. I won't be !voting in this RFC, but I find this section here (as opposed to on the talk page) unusual for an RFC at best and unfair at worst. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'd really like to see people voluntarily keeping their signatures simple and reasonable. But I don't really think anything productive could ever come out of reporting Nearly Headless Nick or Smerdis of Tlön to Wikipedia:Signatures for administrator attention, a place that would be ideal for an {{adminbacklog}} that we can take care of once we're done with all of the important tasks. —Kusma (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I fully support the position expressed at the top. This is pointless, and either of the first two proposals being implemented would cause far more problems than they solve. Also: I will absolutely not change my signature, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, or the existence of any admin willing to block me for it. I will also revert anyone who edits my signature as well as anyone who complains about it at my talk page. This whole proposal is disgustingly opposed to the collaborative spirit of this project, and I'd rather stop editing than give in to this sort of micromanaging process wonkery. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• The community has repeatedly expressed consensus against blocking users for signature guideline violations, and there is no other means of enforcement. This RFC will not change that. So by all means hold the RFC and change the guideline if consensus develops, but it will have no effect on the administration of the project whatsoever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, I didn't know there was a Javascript option to simplify signatures. I have no idea how to add it and the only part of the script I want would be to unclutter the signatures, but this whole thing could be avoided if you allow the users who don't care about signatures to customise their signatures while giving users with accessibility issues access to disable funky signatures. Because of the accessibility issue, I would make the uncluttered signature option the default. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed - Thank you, TonyBallioni, for adding this section. This RfC is a complete waste of time. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Disallow personalized signatures. I have abstained from even answering Q3. And the fact that thousands of regular editors will probably not even know about it should be taken into account. The only reason I found out about it was because I happened to be having a discussion about signatures on my talk page, and the editor I was talking with happened to spot it and notify me. Surely we have something better to do, like building an encyclopedia. nagualdesign 20:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• The healthy discussion taking place above speaks to the relevance of this RfC. Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad this conversation is happening. Retswerb (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I must admit, signatures of even longtime contributors such as Praxicidae or JzG seem unnecessarily obfuscated to me, and I believe myself to be a technology user with a fairly high tolerance to annoying technical minutiae. After all, I'm here, and Wikipedia selects for those qualities, especially with the old-fashioned source editor and required familiarity with markup language in order to participate on talk pages. I think we could use more accessibility and fewer barriers to entry. My preferred solution might be a Mediawiki feature that displays the plain username of every editor after their comments, a feature like every other medium of online conversation in the modern world, though I admit it doesn't really fit with the old-fashioned (and frankly a little bizarre) way talk pages are implemented, i.e. as editable hypertext documents like everything else on Wikipedia. --Anon423 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment IMO this sub-thread question is worded so problematically that any result would not be meaningful. Persons wanting a change say that obscured users names are a problem, not that they meet a more extreme level of being "disruptive". So saying "either it's disruptive or no change needed" is a false dichotomy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators

• There's a question missing on this RfC that I'd like to add - Should an administrator's customized signature be required to display their username in its entirety, and link to their talk page, without changes? I would strongly support this per WP:ADMINACCT; for the more general question on signatures, I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I have read that section again, as I have many times in the past. How is this not covered by the existing text "A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page"? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with HighInBC here - provided there's a link to their talk page, I'm comfortable with the likes of JzG (well, if he picks up the mop again) and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington retaining their current sigs. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No - administrators should not have special privileges nor special obligations under this policy, nor under any policies that don't specifically concern the use of admin tools. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement

This has been advertised on WP:CENT as "usernames in signatures". That needs updated to something along the lines of "Require full, unaltered username in all signatures" because that is a potential outcome of this discussion. This should also be given a watchlist notice because it will impact every logged in user in some way. I'm not up to speed on how to best propose a neutral watchlist notice, but I recommend someone do so as soon as possible, otherwise the calls of "this wasn't advertised well enough" are going to come in - nobody actually watches CENT anyways. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, good idea. "Require full username in signatures"? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see "unaltered" because I think it encompasses the suggestion that it must not be changed, added to, shortened, etc. But at least that's better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 12:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually prefer WP:CENT listings that give just the topic without the specific proposal(s). They're not only shorter, but it means that people have to actually read the proposal to form an opinion on it, rather than forming an immediate gut judgement based on the listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After all that...

....months of discussion, back and forth, occasional moments of temper, a lot of words typed into the ether and all the rest of it....we've agreed on changing absolutely nothing! I can keep my signature the way it is. Never change Wikipedia ;) doktorb _words^deeds 04:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's bad form to use talk pages to casually gloat about getting the result that you wanted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a forum, after all. This could have easily gone on your talk page. Domeditrix (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely take your slap on the wrist, this is bad form Domeditrix. However I have to point out that when this all began, an editor drove me to the edge of leaving the project entirely because of their blinkered attitude towards signature reform, only for them to vanish without contributing one word to the RfC itself, and given the passions and emotions at the start of this process, it's a relief to find that we can now move on without this being such a high-emotion, high-pressure distraction. My post was flippant, I agree and accept. But it's important to see why it has been such a frustrating and emotional experience for some of us who just want to keep our signatures untouched by administration or bureaucracy. doktorb _words^deeds 10:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In cases where there are plenty of participants speaking up on multiple sides of the discussion, it's OK to step back and let new voices be heard. It's not about any one person's view or signature. isaacl (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. We have not changed absolutely nothing. When we started, someone was indeed using this guideline to say that usernames and signatures must correspond. We've put that idea to bed. We have a consensus against the idea that signatures and usernames must exactly correspond (the extreme position) and no consensus to require signatures be easily identifiable as the username they link to. That should avoid at least some disputes over signatures in the future. Now if someone hassles you about your signature all you have to do is point to this as a concrete finding that there is no such requirement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up suggestion

As much as I hesitate to suggest yet another new process, I wonder if something modeled on WP:RFCN might be the solution here. RFCN deals with usernames that are not blatant policy violations but are still seen as problematic. It's not used a lot but it does deal with a dozen or so issues each year, and has much lower drama levels than a board like ANI. There are some prerequisites: the user must have been active recently, and discussion on their talk page must be attempted first, only if they disagree or ignore the concern can you file at RFCN. It's a decent way to deal with edge cases. Something to consider. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is a better idea to just work to get something like Enterprisey's rfc draft finalized and implemented so that people who like custom signatures and those who don't can coexist without either having to significantly modify anything. Rather than setting up another board for reporting issues (which will turn into a drama fest despite best efforts) SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey's suggestion is an excellent idea. I haven't counted the !votes but I hope that the RfC above, which appears to have been closed without comment, is considered to have demonstrated a lack of consensus. nagualdesign 22:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: It was closed as no consensus. The comments are on the three individual questions rather than at the top (1, 2, 3).
Beeblebrox, it might be helpful to add something at the top just for those who are quickly skimming. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. @Beeblebrox: also note that the {{consensus}} templates aren't visible (on mobile at least) for whatever reason. I had to read them using the diffs of your edits. nagualdesign 01:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That's messed up, I had no idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

They don't display because {{consensus}} is a specialised form of {{tmbox}}, which is hidden on mobile because of this rule:

.content .action-edit .fmbox,
.content .tmbox,
.content #coordinates,
.content .topicon {
  display: none !important;
}

It's the same rule that causes mobile not to display many other items usually found at the top of a page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments. It would be nice to start them eventually / strike while the iron is hot; as I noted, we'll probably have an easier time doing it in at least two RfC's (syntax and then behavior). I think I could make an excellent case for just the syntax part (or at least write a really long rant). Enterprisey (talk!) 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Redrose64: I switched them to {{ambox}}, is that also invisible? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's slightly visible on mobile: I can see the first two lines of the closing statement and that's it. When I highlight it and move my finger down, it scrolls down, but it's not a viable solution since the box on mobile is so tiny. On a related note, could we move away from {{Tmbox}}? It's currently used in block notices like {{Sockblock}} (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 190 § SockBlock inaccessible on mobile). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  It would have been better to use the templates that are intended for the purpose:

  • {{closed rfc top|result=(your verdict here, with sig)}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}
  • {{archive top|result=(your verdict here, with sig)}}/{{archive bottom}}
  • {{discussion top|result=(your verdict here, with sig)}}/{{discussion bottom}}

  None of these get hidden on mobile. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  I know everyone uses those these days, I've just always liked the consensus template. I guess that's over though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  You have my deepest condolences. I'm sure that we'll all treasure the memories. Good times. nagualdesign 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Page deletion

Please help me avoid my page from deletion. OhenebaKumi-Prempeh (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@OhenebaKumi-Prempeh: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Signatures page. Try one of the many services advertised at Help:Contents. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

withdrawn Request for comment about flags on signatures

Should the signature policy explicitly allow flags on signatures as per the below image? --Almaty (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, using JzG here is a bad example, let me highlight why: I used a flag before the policy came in, I removed it when the policy came in. Guy (Help!) 6:33 pm, 4 April 2007, Wednesday (14 years, 2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−4).

You can use emojis, but WP:SIG is clear about images for all of the thousands of reasons highlighted in the dozens of previous threads on this exact matter. Not to mention that many of those users haven't edited since the sig policy/guideline changed and was made more clear or they have since changed it. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think many people in the past have used flags for whatever reason, and that the policy should reflect longstanding practice --Almaty (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I linked? It's explained extensively as to why you may not use images in signatures and that there is no "grandfather" clause, which wouldn't even apply to you anyway since your signature came well after the requirement not to have images in sigs and as such this RFC is pointless, redundant and bordering on disruptive. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't pointless or redundant, if the RfC closes as "no" then SVG flags should be explicitly forbidden, because I just clicked on signature tutorials and found how to make one with flags, and it isn't forbidden by the policy. Not everyone knows that flags werent allowed even if they read the policy. Here is the signpost article about it --Almaty (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It has literally been done at least a dozen times. Take a look in the archives. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK if flags were so common then why doesn't the policy say images of any type including flags. --Almaty (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Those examples are from 14(!) years ago and the policy has since 2007 forbidden the use of images of any kind in signatures. So why should the policy mention flags in particular? Is there any evidence that a lot of people were using flags recently because they did not think them to be images? Regards SoWhy 19:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

SoWhy I think (but don't quote me on it) there may be some "flags" from emojis (or at least I feel like there is something similar) but definitely the no image/svg rule has been pretty heavily enforced to the point of blocking editors who refuse to change it for the reasons outlined by several people in the threads I've linked. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I did. whatever no one cares, and I got a ANI about it? could be avoided if explicit. --Almaty (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signatures#Images says in bold: Images of any kind must not be used in signatures. That is very clear. I see no need to say that "any kind" includes flags just because one user refused to remove a flag after the policy was pointed out to them. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Its still ambiguous, images of any kind could mean emoji, and emojis are allowed, and given the signpost article I thought flags were allowed too. Its clearly a hot button topic I wish I never changed my signature from the default. --Almaty (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• an emoji isn't an image? just wondering. — Ched (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is. I mean, displaying files and displaying unicode are different from a technical perspective, but the end user experience is the same. As emojis have been explicitly allowed, perhaps WP:SIG should be clarified accordingly so it's more obvious that some images actually are allowed despite many of the reasons against images still applying. Yes, they can be extremely distracting but we as a community have decided the right to draw pictures with each and every comment one leaves on a talk page is important to protect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  As far as this policy is concerned, if it's Unicode, it's not an image, even if it happens to be a Unicode character that looks like an image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I suggested on AN changing this to "image files" instead of "images", as that would make clear files are prohibited, but other "images" (such as emoji or other unicode characters) are allowed. Alternatively, it could simply specify the types of markup prohibited, ex: "use of the [[File:]], [[Image:]], <gallery> and substantially similar markup is prohibited". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would support changing "images" to "image files" to clarify this. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to banning emojis either but that is a question for another day. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  This is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  No it is not. 06:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

  User:The owner of all, I suspect that you have misunderstood something here. The (IMO good) idea here is that the ☑️ in your current sig is okay, because it's a "character" and not really an "image". The alternative is that we continue to let editors tell you that the Unicode character in your custom sig is an "image" that must be removed. Either view is valid, but it'd be hypocritical for an editor to simultaneously use such a Unicode character while also saying that it's bad for editors to use such Unicode characters. I assume that you don't think that your own sig should be banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought that images were not allowed because they slow down rendering on large talk pages with many signatures, and unicode pictures were allowed because they did not. If it is a flag or not should not be relevant, but rather if it is rendered as text or inline image. Please correct me if I am mistaken about the intent. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Slowdown is one of the reasons. WP:SIGIMAGE lists all of the reasons and they are all good ones. Each reason alone is sufficient to ban images in signatures. Regards SoWhy 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to those reasons, I can see where possibly 3 of them might apply to emoji as well as image files:

• They make pages more difficult to read and scan
• They are potentially distracting from the actual content
• Images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution

but I must also say that these criteria are highly subjective. Elizium23 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In these two edits on this very page, Chicdat (talk · contribs) demonstrates how a flag may be legally incorporated into a signature without involving any images at all. The rainbow flag there is actually four Unicode characters taking up a total of fourteen bytes (in UTF-8 encoding) between them. It's not necessary to use the characters directly, since the hex NCRs 🏳️‍🌈 may be used for the same effect: 🏳️‍🌈. The four characters involved are:

• 'WAVING WHITE FLAG' (U+1F3F3)
• 'VARIATION SELECTOR-16' (U+FE0F)
• 'ZERO WIDTH JOINER' (U+200D)
• 'RAINBOW' (U+1F308)

Basically, the second and third characters are being used to apply the colours of the fourth char to the shape of the first. All Almaty needs to do is find a Unicode character depicting the WHO logo, and combine it with the white flag in a similar manner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Unicode isn't freeform like that. Only defined flag variants that are supported by browsers will work -- you can't just apply anything to the white flag. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

I think that somewhere on this, we should suggest that users add their pronouns to their signatures. It is helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We already have templates like {{gender}} that use the MediaWiki language setting to select an appropriate pronoun for someone. That's more likely to be helpful. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 12#Guide for adding pronouns. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that is none of Wikipedia's business. If people want to, then they can easily type it in their options page like any other customization, but there is no way to merely "suggest" it without it being morally charged. People should not be pressured to reveal their gender if they don't want (or be forced to imply they are non-binary if they just don't want to say). See also Preferred gender pronouns#Cautions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically what Crossroads said. People shouldn't be forced to have pronouns displayed if they don't want them to (an issue I forsee is someone using pronouns that they can't yet input into their preferences who would then have potentially conflicting pronouns displayed both to them and others at various parts of the site). People also shouldn't be forced to care - if pronouns are displayed, it will inevitably lead to a guideline against misusing - but if people don't care what pronouns people on WP refer to them as (like me), why should it be forced to be displayed? Long story short - there's already a way for people who care about what pronoun is used for them to add whatever pronoun they want to their signature. No need for a suggestion, which would lead to people trying to "enforce" the suggestion against people who don't want to comply for valid reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say userboxes are better for this in most cases. For one thing, if someone's pronouns change, there will be a whole lot of signatures on archives and such with the wrong pronouns. I'm working on changing Popups to make userboxes like {{User They them pronouns}} show up in the right place (that is, as the first thing in the "information" section), and I'm sure the WMF would be fine with an analogous change to Page Previews (...maybe? I don't know if there's any user-page-specific treatment in there already). Enterprisey (talk!) 07:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Signature HTML tag issues

My apologies if this isn't the best place to ask this sort of question, but I've left a similar message at Wikipedia talk:Signature tutorial and I doubt it will get answered in the near future or ever since it seems to be pretty inactive there and the other questions remain unanswered. Everyone here looks like a "signature expert" anyway, with their similarly-complex signatures, so I assume someone might be able to help. I've created the code for a new signature, and I really like how it looks when I paste the code onto my sandbox to display the signature, but I am having trouble actually utilizing the code. I made this by copying about two different signature codes, along with some of my own alterations such as changing the color and the wikilinks within it:

<span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">[[User:WaddlesJP13|<b style=color:white>Waddles</b>]] [[User talk:WaddlesJP13|<b style=color:white>🗩</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/WaddlesJP13|<b style=color:white>🖉</b>]]</span>

To me, the code looks valid, and I don't know exactly what I am doing wrong. I am somewhat familiar with HTML tags, but not complex ones like the one seen here since I primarily just copy codes and work from there rather than putting them together. The code displays as Waddles 🗩 🖉, and it's a pretty solid signature in my opinion, I'm just having trouble saving it and I receive the message "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." I've checked multiple times and have tried altering it several times but nothing has worked. Would someone who is familiar with HTML tags be able to point out if I am missing anything or have added something that results in the issue I'm facing? WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: There is invalid HTML, it's in the two <b style=color:white> tags - attribute values must be quoted unless they consist entirely of the 64 characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, hyphen-minus and period - the colon is not one of those 64, so to make the tags valid you must use <b style="color:white">.

One thing I'm not too sure about is the length. The fix just described will make it 254 characters, which is below the 255-char limit mentioned at WP:SIGLEN, I don't know whether it's actual characters or bytes. If bytes, you have a further problem in that the 🗩 and 🖉 characters are four bytes each, so the length (as fixed above) will be 260 bytes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for helping me! Also, the character count for the signature turns out to be 244 and the bytes is 254. Hopefully its not too much of a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(I do notice the breaking problem, but I think I was able to fix it.) Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: my device is unable to display the two characters after "Waddles" in your signature. They are being displayed as boxes with x mark. I can see the rose emoji in Redrose's sign above and several other emojis in user signs elsewhere. It seems like you are using some kind of less used or non-standard emoji. Please consider replacing them. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My browser (Firefox) also shows those two characters as little boxes, but each containing six tiny characters in two rows: 01F5E9 and 01F589 respectively. What other people see will depend upon both the browser and upon the fonts installed on the device. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: I wound up here after looking to see what policy currently is about emoji in signatures, since I had to search the internet to determine what those two symbols in your signature are. In Firefox, I see boxes containing 4 illegible glyphs; in Chrome, I see empty boxes. Emojipedia told me they are supposed to be a speech balloon and a pencil. I have a problem with emojis in any case since they almost always display so tiny that I can only discern the identity of the most obvious and brightly-colored ones, and I have never found a way to make them larger so that I can understand what the poster was trying to convey, but your signature reveals that there is also less than universal support for some of these symbols, and I see from the above two posts that it's not just my computer. May I request you change it to use symbols that render more widely? I think this problem should also be flagged on the page, since mysterious glyphs, blank boxes, or sother signs of rendering failure make a signature annoyingly inscrutable. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I use Chrome by default and the two symbols show up perfectly fine, so I'm not sure why they would show up as boxes for you. I could change them, but I'm not entirely sure what I would change them to. I only chose these symbols since I've seen other signatures with these exact ones or other similar symbols, and I'm not much a fan of emojis, at least the ones that Windows uses. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: See my previous post; you probably have one or more fonts installed that Yngvadottir doesn't have. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Need help making a signature.

I'm trying to make the background navy blue (#000080) and the text green (#00FF00) but it won't work. Can someone help me? Sans9k (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sans9k ,

I have adjusted your example above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Sans9k (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of signatures?

Every form, user discussion space other than wiki always labels each text a person has written. Why must one sign with tildes here? Greatder (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a wiki where people can and do edit things, including comments. For example, if editing the banners or an archive template at the top of a talk page, you don't want it signed. Similarly it's not clear where an automatic signature would go if someone closed a discussion. There are plans to provide an automatic system for replying to comments, including automatic signatures. See Wikipedia:Talk pages project. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder, our system evolved separately from other discussion platforms, and nobody thought back then that making people manually sign posts was that bad. Of course, nowadays we know that was a disastrous user interface decision. Fortunately people have been working on that. The "talk pages project" Johnuniq mentions, which will automatically sign your posts, will be enabled for everyone early next year, finally resolving this issue. The signatures will still be regular wikitext, unfortunately, but it's a big step forward nonetheless. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: That's great to hear! Will it also ping the replied user automatically? For example I got pinged because of your message. But I didn't know Johnuniq actually replied to me. Greatder (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I pinged you manually, because I suspected you hadn't seen Johnuniq's message :) There will be a way to subscribe to sections (for example, I'm subscribed to this section right now, and will get a notification when someone replies to it) as well. You can get all these things today by going to Preferences → Beta features and checking the box for "Discussion tools" and clicking "Save", by the way. Enterprisey (talk!) 12:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)