Problem: The signature in Wikipedia is limited to some words. However, some users want a large signature consisting of more words. But they are bound to the short signature. I also faced the problem. And couldn't select my favourite signature due to its short length.
Who would benefit: Everyone
Proposed solution: Expand the length of signature to double or triple.
Signatures are used to indicate authorship of comments, and they seem to work well for this purpose as they are. How would this proposal improve this? Silver hr (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although they work fine, I know. However, they should be a bit longer. Therefore, they must be expanded to a few more words or bytes. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Silver HR. Not in all cases. Suppose I am an employee of a firm who has appointed me to deposit all cashes into banks as per schedule on thier behalf then Bank would never take submissions of details without my signature and definitely I don't have authority to call that cash my own and bank knows it well. Authors are those who have commercially owning thier writings with copyright ownership and generating loyalty or incomes in distributions are both. A writer is not necessarily always the owner of everything that he/she writes. I render/furnish/state/issue/call/other with giving it strength and officality by backing and concluding with my signature and same thing I would do if I am doing any or all of these on "behalf" of or in "association" with and some more similar to these. An unsigned doc/good/equity/cash/letter/copy and others is considered orphan and so only the actual author or owner keeps loyal and faithful signatories for thier all need in this segments. I short this is for authentic identification more and less or none for personal possession.2409:4081:9E80:6844:0:0:CC0A:7E12 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide some examples of signatures that would benefit, both in the currently limited form, and the desired form? --DragonHawk (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I can. In the past I wanted this signature (EmpireASTalk!) but due to the its length, I couldn't get it. And I used this signature (Empire ASTalk!) instead as it was shorter. Therefore, I made this proposal to expand its length. It was all that I explained. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Ampire AS. I saw right now this proposal was made by you. Actually [by default] I read people’s gossips and sayings first then the matter on which they are discussing. I'll improve it. I looked at your previous and old signatures. Both seems not measurable and not measurable. I guess you put this proposal for having fun after a hectic work completion,right? Let me be Meta itself for few moments and you are I front of me. How can I accept your signature expansion proposal wish and approve it and finish the scope of your any further proposal of this very kind after this in one go? You know your win is my win type! See nothing comes granted. If it's approved then surely you'll find a term of use with it. So I'm giving you what you want and conditioning that your first 50 signature after this grant must be at least 2 feet long [ each signature each time] then only you'll qualify for having this with no more rule enforcing or obliging on your signatures by Meta once you've done this, once only. What would you do then if situation says there is no way but accepting this "2 feet long signature" challenge? Ideas of any further demand for this very subject just vanished? That signature will be measurable for me [ I can measure it's length for sure] and don't worry it is measurable for you as well. 😅 Now before you get a bit upset let me tell you that you are free to write or design and write whatever and however signature you want. If Wikipedia owns the content having your signature beneath then the signature is owed by you soully. I repeat you're the sole owner of your signature. No one can put a bit of rule or pattern on how you should sign, no one not even the Wikipedia or Meta or anyone authorized by them for this very area. You own your signature. Make it like a flower or like a disnasor, no one can stop you. It's law.I personally like fancy signatures very much.2409:4081:9E80:6844:0:0:CC0A:7E12 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forbid any formatting in signatures, those penis prosthetics are just annoying. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Sannger. You guys sometimes annoy me hilariously.[Emogi Laughing] waite waite! Your name seems known! Anyways, yes I can guess when your prosthetics should be annoying you but I won't tell. I am basically story teller and example giver[ I don't know one word for this] first. Let pick a words, yes I took 3 words from my last writen comment, fancy, dinasore and signature. I start with dinasore. Have you ever seen a mouse turning into dinasore? You know that mouse. Now suppose I'm Meta for a while and after seeing you annoyed I decided to accept your demand and grant it provided that a small task or condition needs to done of obeyed by you and you'll never find such annoying prosthetics after this. Condition is you have to put either a mouse or a dinasore inside your innderwear [lower, not upper] just for hours I mean just for minimum 24 hours to take this grant and in addition of it I'm offering you [ Beyond the rule] Wikimedian of the year award with no other nominations to compete you. You just have to let either a mouse or a dinasore in and live inside your [ see above] just for 24 hours. There is only two options. What option would you take? Logic says you must choose the mouse because it won't eat your [ find word here only what you feel comfortable for you] and it's compact compared to dinasore, right? Also you have opportunity to be Wikimedian of the year by doing this. I think you should choose mouse only because it will not "annoy" you in 24 hours [ EmogiLaughing] Lelends know what will annoy, the dinasore or the mouse !]. I am little week in codes, but I manage to program as per the occasions. So I lock the mouse and announce the award but conditions for reciveing this award at the stage is that you must be wearing a heavu fancy gold qouated Sherwani [ It's a royal wedding and luxury wear in south Asia with nadas in the place of buttons in Pazama [ Ties in the Pants of it] while reciveing the award on the day it's sheduled to present you. So finally you have choosen the mouse, I'm assuming it. You can object in reply to me. Everything is flexible like...! [Emogi Laughing]. Now suppose you're Meta and I'm at your place and event is the same. Options are same then I will choose the dinasore. You may wonder thatI'm inviting troubles and losing that Wikimedian award foolishly.[ It's okay I would love letting dinasore there however I would definitely ask for adding "Gun" as third option politely as I already put it there so it's used to me.] If you say I should choose small mouse to avoid dangers and win the award then definitely I will reject your advice even I would be getting Wikimedian of the millennium award for putting a mouse [there] for 24 hours. [Emogi Laughing 45 angle] I can't. Mouse is the danger here!. Well I am stopping and also [ It's serious,not so] what if I make a proposal to Meta to display a small bar or simply in sentences informing how many dinasores,mouses, thier caves or cages and gun owners are in current active discussion so that the participants get to know right on the top before making statements? I am thinking this.[ Emogi gguessing] Reply seems went longer than dinasore's tale like always. I stop this time for say awaiting your take or oppose. Before you get upset a little bit let me tell you too like those "prosthetics" in your signature but I think you like less seeing much colours though I may be wrong. One more thing I appreciate your dare to speak straight and touchy [EmogiLaughing]. If you don't like something tell them. If you need to slap anyone just slap! Neither please nor expect anything pleasant. Other's judgment goes to hell. That doesn't matter provided that you speak the truth no matter what. I will tell you later why I choose dinasore and indirectly rejected Wikimedian of the millennium award easily.[ # My answer on this may show my thought on 'nature & characters' of content in Wikipedia articles, not whole but partially]. 2409:4081:9E80:6844:0:0:CC0A:7E12 20:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting
Weak oppose This might allow people to abuse said signatures. I am really not positive about this idea. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose People willing to say a lot about themselves have ample sufficiency to do so on their user page. Worth remembering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media. Plus long words/signatures are not beginner-friendly. It took me ages to discover how I could interact with some who had special signatures. --Braveheidi (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No good reason was given for this. Silver hr (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Not against it in theory but I've never seen any examples where a signature is too long for the current system // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 03:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose per MarioSuperstar77, Braveheidi, and.....Lollipoplollipoplollipop Firestar464 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose! This may end up allowing stories or short bios included in a signature instead of it to serve as just a sign. Em-mustaphaUser | talk 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose totally unnecessary. One can be distinctive with fewer characters. Long signatures are also sometimes disruptive to the readability of discussions.Possibly (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose. Long signature code just clutters page's source code and is usually used by people who like to put an excessive amount of colours, links and other unnecessary stuff in their signature. So no, hard no on this proposal. Meiræ 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose en: totally exaggerated / de: völlig übertrieben --Dirk123456 (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I'd say: disallow useless bling in signatures, especially any <span>-junk, that's are just an eyesore.Reply[reply]
Oppose per Braveheidi et al. —2d37 (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support <span> tags take many symbols. Golmore (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Signatures are supposed to be short and simple. Nachtbold (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose This might allow people to abuse said signatures. I am really not positive about this idea. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose People willing to say a lot about themselves have ample sufficiency to do so on their user page. Worth remembering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media. Plus long words/signatures are not beginner-friendly. It took me ages to discover how I could interact with some who had special signatures. --Braveheidi (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose per MarioSuperstar77, Braveheidi, and.....Lollipoplollipoplollipop Firestar464 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
