Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Cursive letters on the keyboard

Please add an explanation of how to write "Cursive Letters" on the phone or laptop keyboard. notify me when adding this explanation. Mohmad Abdul sahib (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I recommend normal text, but you could use something like <span style="font-family:'Foo';">text</span> in your signature, where "Foo" is the name of a "cursive" font and "text" is the text that you want to appear in your font of choice. Note that not all readers and editors will have your font of choice installed, so they will see normal text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You can use the generic font family cursive, which is browser-dependent yet portable - it has been valid ever since CSS 1.0 way back in 1996. <span style="font-family:cursive;">Text</span> → Text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That looks like Comic Sans on Firefox 87.0 (and Comic Sans is not cursive). A longer sample: As you said, browser-dependent, and apparently dependent on some browser(s) other than Firefox. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Your browser should have a configuration page, which might be called options, preferences or settings; in that there should be options for setting the default font family that should be used for each of the five generic font families. I don't know how your browser is configured, so cannot explain why it is using Comic Sans for cursive (as opposed to a font like e.g. Freestyle Script): but it should be possible to select any font that is installed on your device for each of these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that in the Firefox options. They allow you to specify a "default font", and the fonts to be used for proportional, serif, sans serif, and monospace. I currently have those options set to Calibri, Serif, Calibri, Arial, and Courier New, respectively. I can see no way to specify the font to be used for cursive. If there is a way to do this in Firefox, it is an obscure trick not provided in the usual options dialogs. Note that I don't care for my own purposes, I am just correcting the apparent misconception in your last comment and trying to help shed some light on the OP's issue. As far as I can tell at this point, using font-family:cursive will get them Comic Sans for all Firefox users. That may or may not be acceptable to them. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As for the OP's request to update the Signatures guidance, I would oppose that as outside the scope of this guideline (as well as any other Wikipedia guideline, for that matter). This issue would be better raised at WP:RDC or some off-wiki forum, as it has more to do with how to use CSS to achieve a desired formatting result than about how to use or edit Wikipedia. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We have been assuming that the OP is asking how to use cursive in their Wikipedia signature. On the other hand, I have often seen new users post on this page about things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia signatures, and it's a mystery to me how they keep ending up here. Read the original post again; it says nothing about signatures. I now think they simply seek help typing cursive on their devices, which again is not a subject for Wikipedia outside WP:RDC—unless there happens to be a Wikipedia article that answers the question, which I think is unlikely. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That Cursive looks like Comic Sans at my end, I'm using Firefox, and while I have changed some of my option, I have never messed with the font settings; it's still whatever default Mozilla set it at. Perhaps whomever decided that Cursive looks like that, meant displayed Script rather than displayed Comic Sans, and it's just the font family name that's wrong, i.e. Script is Cursive, and vice versa, or at least, that's what I was taught how it should appear. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Focus on: abbreviations.

I want this section to focus on abbreviations. So this could be long user names reduced to initials, or in my case where the last two letters are omitted, or any broadly defined case of a signature being an abbreviation of the user name.

What are the real, genuine ways in which abbreviations break current guidelines? And how do abbreviations cause genuine inconvenience to the editing process?

doktorb _words^deeds 18:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like focusing on how things break the current guidelines is the wrong solution. We should be looking at what the guidelines should be. Guidelines can be changed, and should be.--Jorm (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's very odd to see Doktorbuk how do abbreviations cause genuine inconvenience to the editing process?. That question has been answered in reply to Doktorbuk at least half-a-dozen times on this page alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Signatures and usernames

There is a thread at ANI which primarily concerns whether/when it is acceptable for a signature to display a name other than one's username.

Under WP:CUSTOMSIG/P we have the following:

• A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username
• It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents

First of all, what is the relationship between these two bulletpoints?

Second, is there still consensus for this? If so, what should be done when a user is asked to make their signature conform to this guidance and declines? If the answer is nothing, I would argue that we should reassess whether there is consensus to have these written in a guideline (which should, of course, be followed unless there's a good reason not to, rather than followed unless someone just doesn't want to).

Third, what wording would best reflect current consensus?

There may be an RfC in the future here, but let's just have a conversation about this first, before formally supporting/opposing/RfCing. It would help, prior to an RfC, to at least identify what the correct question/options are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the urge to individualize one's "appearance", but when the account name is not what is displayed in the signature, it makes following discussions more difficult. When you have to enable pop-ups and hover or click through to the user page just to see who is commenting, it's irritating. I've had pings fail because I tried to reply to the visible "name". It's also confusing when I see an edit in my watchlist and click through to read it in context, but can't find the comment because the editor name I'm looking for isn't displayed. Personally, I would support modifying WP:CUSTOMSIG/P to say the signature must include the actual account name. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to live with reality. That means there will be no change because too many people are too used to the current system. There is a faint chance that the WMF will introduce a super-talk scheme in the far future with automatic signatures and there would be no customization possible. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I, too, support requiring a signature to incorporate the username. It may be helpful to add a bullet point that says that a user who does not wish to include their username in their signature has the option of changing their username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who thinks there should be the prefers a real username incorporated into the sig. There are plenty of other ways to customize a signature to express your individuality. - Ched :  ?  23:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (edited 05:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC))

Johnuniq, The WMF will never do that b/c they will never spend the Actual Resources and Social Capital required to make talk pages not suck. They just won't. Jorm (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that if there is a lot of push back from editors with already grandfathered signatures, they shouldn't be made to change, but encouraged to do so (in a positive manner), granting some leeway. Whether "leeway" means allowing them to keep their signature, or merely granting them a extension of delay, that will need to be decided. I'm not against the change, but let's not start badgering editors just because a deadline has passed. We will need a process of escalation for signatures that don't comply with the new policy, a fair and respectful one. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 and Schazjmd. We are here to collaborate to build an encyclopedia. A core part of that collaboration is following each others contributions, whether that involves edits to articles or comments in discussion, and the ability to ping in replies. So I would like the guideline to require that every sig must include a link to the editor's user page or usertalk page which displays their exact name, and nothing else. Further text or decoration may be added, and the linked text may be styled, but the sig must include a clear link of the form [[User:Example|Example]] or [[User talk:Example|Example]].

As a secondary preference, I would also support a proposal to ban all customisation and allow only the default sig. That would lose some helpful decoration and colouring and the helpful link to contribs which many of us add to our sigs, but its simplicity and clarity would avoid all this discussion about the nuances of sig rules. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, re proposal to ban all customisation and allow only the default sig. Just no. Far too draconian and it would never see the light of day. — Ched (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: As I noted, it would be my second preference. I would support a ban on customisation only if the less restrictive display-and-link-your-actual-username proposal failed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's relatively common to see experienced users and admins tell new users that they must state their username in their signature. This is a double standard, as a number of experienced users and admins don't comply with this "rule". Either we should explicitly require this, or we should explicitly note that it's not required (i.e. strike the weasel-y "common practice" language). The status quo is unfair.

As to potential outcomes here: In the days before pinging, I think it would have been reasonable to say that a signature needn't show the user's name if the displayed name redirects to the correct user, and either is registered as a doppelgänger or cannot be registered due to similarity. However, as long as redirected userpages don't redirect pings, such a policy still risks User:Example (signs as X. Ample) not getting notified when someone (reasonably) writes {{ping|X. Ample}}. As such, my inclination would be to support a requirement without exception. However, users should still be allowed to include an alternate name, e.g. Xavier (User:Example · talk). -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 23:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also let's not forget about non-Latin usernames. Nardog (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• The incident is here at ANI (permalink) where a particular signature is discussed. That raises another point: should a signature include 37 bytes of html to force the 94-byte signature (including timestamp) to not wrap? I would say no. Regarding requiring a visible user name, there are plenty of variations which would make a copy/paste difficult—that needs thought. Also, there are some old-timers with over 100,000 edits and renaming them would not be easy. Is grandfathering to be considered? Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose any grandfathering. Guidelines are hard to enforce if some editors get a free bypass, because that looks like favouritism. A single set of rules for all sigs will end the whataboutery. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding nowrap (and everything else other than signatures matching usernames), IMO this sort of thing is difficult enough to find consensus on; let's focus. :) I find the idea of grandfathering when it comes to users (as opposed to, say, some odd cases of article style) to be highly problematic. We already struggle with new user retention and occasionally get a bad rap for applying policies and guidelines more leniently to old-timers where those rules have gray areas. Let's definitely not have rules that explicitly discriminate based on account age except where necessary (autopatrolled for vandalism, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    Back to your original question, @Rhododendrites: Imagine that you have a username that you thought was cool at the time, but your opinion has changed. Maybe you thought that PokemanFan was a cool idea when you created your account at the age of 12, or maybe you picked a name to honor a favorite person who has since turned out to have some disgraceful problems, or, I dunno, maybe you're just tired of getting e-mail messages from jerks who want to know if you're really a "SlimVirgin".

    What do you imagine these editors would do under your proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: Just to be clear, I support having a guideline that applies consistently above all else. If that means long-timers get to do something that new users can't, it should be explained as such rather than surprising newbies with a rule that only applies to them but is written like it applies to everyone. My first choice of the list I just posted below is to allow abbreviations [and other nonusername text]. So perhaps PF/PFan and SV, or even SarahSV. I know there will be plenty of unusual/edge cases, I'm sure (JzG comes to mind, with a sig that connects to the name, but in an abbreviated spelled out version of the acronym), but that feels like the best way to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: Change their username. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 04:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Some cases currently discussed at ANI are even worse than the "X. Ample" example. At least with "X. Ample", there is some chance you'll recognize the playful pun. Some of them are more like User:Example signing as "HS₂₀₂₁grad" – a completely unrelated string. If I'm in a talk page conversation and I see someone say "I agree with Example", I want to be able to figure out who they're referring to without viewing the source markup text. And if I search for the remarks made by a particular user account, I want to be able to find them (e.g., if I have noticed that a particular user has shown up in the talk page history). And if I click on a link to go to some user talk page, I don't want to end up surprised and think I must have clicked on the wrong link or am looking at the wrong browser tab. To me, it already seems pretty clear what is meant by "a customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". If I look at a signature and no part of it bears any resemblance to the username, I think it has not met that criterion. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I support your viewpoint, BarrelProof. I've had problems with links rather than signatures, but the frustration is much the same. And yes, I will be working on my own signature after a night's rest. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Grandfathering is not favoritism; it's a practical way to move in a positive direction for new things without disrupting existing things. If someone doesn't want to join the project because they can't have a fancy sig but (waaaah!) older editors can, we don't need them. And note that changing the existing signatures of established users adds a certain amount of confusion in and of itself. So if grandfathering will begin a transition to solving this annoying problem, fine. EEng 00:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A new user (or, in the case which led to this discussion, someone who's been here since 2009) being put off for being scolded and dragged to ANI for doing exactly the same thing lots of other people do does not make them an expendable crybaby. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    No one should be scolded and dragged to ANI over this. The policy should be clear (including any grandfather provision) and people should be directed to it and asked to comply. EEng 01:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) There has been some grandfathering of other aspects, such as using an email address as a username. Allowing grandfathering might reduce some of the resistance. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I AGF that grandfathering is not intended as favoritism, but it is definitely perceived as favouritism by some editors, and resented as such.
    The way to create a smooth transition is to have a transitionary period for everyone, in which the new rules are clearly signposted but not yet enforced. In that period, users with no-compliant sigs can be gently warned that they need to change their sig before the 32nd of Julember (or whatever date is chosen). We should make these messages all kitten-cuddly, and save the tigers until the deadline expires. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    I repeat that changing the sigs of established users creates its own confusion and, IMHO, is just enough of a fig leaf to justify grandfathering. I don't care whether it's perceived as favoritism. Big deal. You perceive and resent favoritism over custom sigs, and might quit over that? Then we don't need you. EEng 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    Along the same line, you have invested years contributing to the site but resent having your actual account name in your signature and might quit over that? We should have a rule for everyone or scrap it all together. Schazjmd (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

While IMO the discussion that triggered this also has a problem with battleground mentality in enforcing it, IMO the guideline should flatly prohibit obfuscating a person's user name, with no grandfathering. A signature that is not the user name is useless. Signed Rumpleskilson. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that individualized signatures in the sense of special color schemes and the like are very helpful and should actually be encouraged (not commenting on my own; haven't gotten around to it yet). However, what is the rationale for not having an exact copy of the username in the signature? The only good reason I can think of is that some editors may start to be referred to more commonly by an abbreviation or by another nickname than by their actual username. But even in that somewhat borderline case, they could consider changing their username. All other reasons why people are doing it are clearly much less important than usability and transparency in collaborative environments. As for the grandfathering, I see even less good reasons for that. Clearly, those who know old-time users also know their real username and would have no problem adapting, and those who don't know them would have less reason to be perplexed. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely Opposed to any grandfather clause. This should apply to all users, regardless of the final decision. A "grace period" might be worth persuing, so users can transition from one to the other, or make it clear "Hey, my name is now X, but I used to display it as Y," but allowing older accounts to bypass the rule is just favoritism. We have enough problems with letting people get by breaking rules just because they've been here a long time, we don't need to enshrine that habit in policies or guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As a tangential point, I think admins must have a signature that makes them easily identifiable, both to who they are and how to communicate with them, per WP:ADMINACCT. Examples of RfA candidates who the community have demanded change their signatures include Peacemaker67 (crack ... thump) and Hog Farm (bacon). For everyone else, I'm less worried about it, though I have wondered how many people type {{ping|Fiddle Faddle}} by accident. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a need for a change to our current practice, so that we enforce (if necessarily gradually, so as not to upset anyone more than we have to) a ruling that there should be a recognisable connection between a signature and a username, so that, for example, someone looking at a User Talk Page can recognise the signature which is associated with that user. Abbreviations, variations, etc are fine, and I don't know how we would express the rule, but the obscurity of unrelated signatures adds to the "in-crowd" atmosphere which can make life difficult for new editors. There are a very important couple of comments in the "non-Latin" section below:

"So long as Praxicidae and other active editors view everything ending with -cidae as Praxicdae's name, everything is fine."

"creating readily-avoidable types of "insider jargon" like this is a well-known type of barrier to new entrants. The very fact that you qualify your comments by referring to "active editors" describes a problem in the shape of an In-group and out-group.

That is why we need to try to enforce our guidance that a signature should be recognisable as being that of a particular editor. I don't know how we handle the specific problem of non-latin names, as a user is entitled to use the same username across all Wikipedias. I personally find it difficult to identify/recognise usernames in scripts other than latin or cyrillic, and would find it difficult to distinguish between contributors to a discussion if there were several editors using signatures in the same non-latin script. PamD 07:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about potential options

Question: what about these for some options to replace the two bulletpoints above (with my explanations in italics):

1. A customised signature must clearly present the username it represents.
2. A customised signature must clearly present the username it represents. You may include additional text or links as long as the username is clear. (This may or may not be implied in #1, but some may prefer being clear on the matter.)
3. A customised signature must clearly present the username it represents or an abbreviation thereof (for example, TNT for User:TheresNoTime). (Sorry, TNT; just the first example that came to mind. Worth noting there will certainly be edge cases here, but that's probably ok.)
4. A customised signature must clearly present the username it represents except where a signature was in use prior to [some date]. (The "grandfathered" clause discussed above.)
5. [Remove the bulletpoints without replacing them, as there is no consensus to require customised signatures to correspond to usernames]. (If anyone can simply decide to dismiss this guideline for any reason, it shouldn't be a guideline but an essay.)
6. [Something else]?

Does this capture the different perspectives here? The worst option of all, which is not included, is to do nothing and have a guideline that will be enforced arbitrarily and which anyone can ignore for any reason. If we're going to have a grandfather clause, it needs to be explicit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't an RfC or a vote. I'm checking to see if these options actually encompass the options which could find consensus first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You may need something about non-ASCII usernames. Also there's possibly an option allowing for a "real" name in place of a username, while restricting some types of anarchy in signatures. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: Please no "real name in place of username". That's just a recipe for perpetuating the problem. Editors should be allowed to put text after the username, which may or may be be their real name. For example

--User:Example the galactic goddess

--User:Example2, Sean Citizen.

This can also accommodate nom-Latin names --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) User names not written in Latin script were mentioned above and are missing here. And, I think that the word 'clearly' will need some clarification in several of your listed options. Example: would the sig "verlorn ist das sluzzelîn dû muost ouch immêr darinne sîn" be ok for me? What about "nilezzulS"? etc. (I guess I'm anticipating all sorts of loopholing, but with some justification when regarding past discussions. Personally, I have no preference, which doesn't mean I don't care). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding non-Latin script, I wouldn't anticipate changing WP:NLS. Whatever bulletpoint, or lack thereof, which comes out of this discussion, would still be part of the larger guideline. Do we think it needs to be spelled out here, too? As for the rest, does it make sense to just say "must include the username it represents"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it makes more sense to structure this like:

• The big question: Should a customised signature generally correspond to the username it represents?

If not, we should get rid of the bulletpoints. But if so, then which do you agree with:

• A customised signature should present the username in its entirety, without changes.
• Signatures may contain additional text in addition to the username, as long as it does not violate another part of this guideline.
• An abbreviation of a username is an acceptable signature (TNT for TheresNoTime, for example)
• A variation on a username is an acceptable signature (an alternative spelling or backwards, for example).
• A username in the middle of other text, such as in a sentence, is an acceptable signature.
• A customised signature may differ from a username where the username uses non-Latin script.
• This rule should only apply to signatures that enter use starting in June 2021.
• This rule should only apply to signatures that entered use starting in [other date?]
• What else?

The idea is to present not discrete options but a central question and then modular options beyond that. It's a little tedious to delineate all of the possibilities and then combine the ones there's consensus for, admittedly. Is it worth going that route? Sorry to clog the page with lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there's a few more options. Not that I necessarily support either of these, but for the sake of completeness:

6) A customized signature must clearly present a name that most users would understand to represent the username. (slightly broader version of #3; e.g. a longer form of the same name, typographical puns like "&" instead of "and", homographs like "$" instead of "S", etc.)

7) (In addition to any of the other options) The displayed name must be either registered to the user in question as a doppelgänger, or ineligible for registration. That account's userpage must redirect to the user's actual userpage (or user talk page if they have no userpage).

-- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for trying this valuable exercise of defining options. However, none of them reflects my preference, which is verbosely expressed here:

A customised signature must clearly display as its first item the username it represents, and the username must be a link to either the user page or the user talk. No other characters may be displayed a part of that link. Additional text may be included, but the only links permitted are to the user page, talk page, and contribs list. The display text for such subsequent links must clearly describe their function in plain English.

Can something like that be included? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Afk for a little while but please go ahead and add those elements above as you see fit, preferably brown into parts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I am beginning to think that this is all getting too complex. There are too many issues on the table, and I think we should simplify the list down the core issue: the exact username must be a link to the userpage/talk, with no other text included in that link. That' the crucial issue which facilitates the basic task of copying the username into a ping. If we don't get that clarified, then the secondary issues are not worth the fuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

the core issue - but I don't think that's the core issue as much as the most extreme of the ideas being discussed. I'm skeptical such a proposal would find consensus. IIRC there was a recent proposal that the name must be copy/pasteable that failed to find consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: thanks for this. Timezones are curious things, I feel like I've missed a lot of discussion already but here goes some very rough and ready feelings from me on this. I thank you for the options and the chance to discuss things after the ANI. I'm an editor of many years standing, and back when I started here, I remember how editors went buck-wild with signature mark-up. It was perhaps the excitement and naivety of the Internet back then. It was, of course, an earlier age. My own username does not match my signature entirely. I used "doktorb" all over the place back then and wanted this to match. These days I use many different variations, including my own real name thanks to social media sign-ins in the modern Internet mode. I still use "doktorb" as my signature here. It's not so much "grandfather rights" as a force of habit. To date, not one person has objected to my signature not being an exact match, and not one editor has asked me to amend or change it. In my case, the two are as near as damnit the same, and surely this is fine. I'm not misleading people into thinking that I am an entirely different entity. The problem comes from editors who do just that. If my signature had no relationship at all with "Doktorbuk", then I would, in my own view, be potentially misleading other editors. I feel the ANI case involves one such case. If my signature deliberately obscured my real username, to the point of giving the impression of a redirect or renaming or other such arm;s length relationship, then it would surely be a case to open against me. Let's not get bogged down by editors who may have gone crazy with colours and fonts. Let's stick with those who have chosen to call themselves X but have a signature that is widely and deliberately unrelated to X. doktorb _words^deeds 02:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorb: here's me pinging the username you display. The ping doesn't work, and it's just as broken as if you had displayed some completely unrelated name. Only an exact match works.

I have always found you a helpful editor, so please explain why you think this impediment to pings is helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey BHG. I've just gone through my notifications. A good half-dozen editors have pinged/mentioned me using Doktorbuk. Maybe they had to preview their posts first and change doktorb to Doktorbuk, I don't know, but in all cases, not one of those editors mentioned or suggested that my signature was an impediment to pinging. I was notified in good time and without complaint. Maybe they're being polite?! Maybe it's not an issue. Until your message just now, no editor has ever mentioned that it's an issue that doktorb does not match up to Doktorbuk. So from my perspective, it is not an insurmountable problem. If my signature is changed, for the first time in, what, 12 years(?) would that create an improvement to my contributions? doktorb _words^deeds 02:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: it's not insurmountable, but it is an impediment. Why make things difficult? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Up to this very moment, it was not suggested or communicated to me that it was making things difficult. It is, I note, half 3 in the morning. If, following sleep and a shift at work, I feel that my signature has to exactly match my username for the first time in over a decade, I will make the amendment. I supported you on the ANI page, and now feel like the lack of the letters 'uk' has placed me under scrutiny. Until the next time. doktorb _words^deeds 02:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, if pinging is your concern, I wonder if you might be interested in the Reply tool, which you'll find under "Discussion tools" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. The (regular) visual mode and the (experimental/extra click to enable) wikitext source mode give you an automatic search for users, and it prioritizes the people already in the discussion. I've missed very few pings such I started using it. (Work-me is happy to answer questions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I installed the Reply tool about a year ago. It's a bit of a pain, because about half the time it fails, and I have to edit the page anyway. So I often don't bother with it.

In fairness to the tool, it does create the markup for the ping, which I can use as I edit the page to paste in the failed reply.

But even with the tool, we still have the problem that the resulting display of usernames in a reply is bewildering. Consider this example:

• All the sources cited agree that Murphy was a leprechaun. --Craic Sean 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Example: No they don't. O'Hara (1947), Ahern (1998), McLoughlin (2001) and Foster (2012) are all cited. They are peer-reviewed papers focused on that issue, and say he was not. --Poiuytrewqqq 00:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The ping works there, but that exchange is bewildering to other editors, because Poiuytrewqqq reply to "Example" seems to be a reply to someone other than the author of the post above. This doesn't help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, there are several tools. You have User:Enterprisey/reply-link in your common.js file. I'm talking about a new part of MediaWiki software that's available as a tick-the-box-in-your-prefs Beta Feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't usually install beta stuff, but thanks for the info.

But whatever tool there is, not everyone will use it. And even for those who solve the ping problem, we still have the problem of the ping displaying a username which doesn't match the sig ... which leads to confusion abut whether the ping is to the editor above or to someone else.

We should not have to be doing workarounds for the basic task of of identifying each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not insurmountable: I systematically click on the link to the user's talk page and copy-paste the username from there. But that's a hassle indeed, and it's entirely due to users who don't have their actual user name in their signature. People aren't going to address you on this specifically, because everyone's doing it. But changing this guideline would definitely make wiki-life just a bit easier for all of us. Of course, it's much worse when a username's not recognizable at all, but my take is that prescribing an exact copy solves more problems than it creates, and is therefore the recommended route. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: And cases like yours are why I want to make sure we can account for abbreviations and variations. I suspect there would not be consensus for an absolute 1:1 accordance between link and username in every instance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: 1:1 accordance may sound like pedantry, but nothing else works. Abbreviations and variations cannot be pinged or found in page histories. Without an absolute 1:1 accordance between link and username, editors cannot copy the username to make a ping, unless we go through extra steps like clicking the link to open in a new window and see where we land. Similarly, we cannot copy the displayed username and search the page history for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thank you for your response. And thank you for wanting to find a workable compromise. I agree with you that 1:1 is simply not going to get past the wider community. Working with you to find a compromise, in the grand tradition of how Wikipedia works, is something I hope to do. If I don't lose too much sleep (as appears to be literally happening at the moment!) doktorb _words^deeds 04:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: unfortunately, any perceived compromise isn't really a compromise.

If the displayed name is not exactly the same as the username, it can't be used to make a ping, and it cannot be reliably used to search page histories etc. There is no scope for compromise here, because the choice is rigidly binary: either we have an exact match which works, or something else which doesn't work.

Those of us holding out for an exact match are not being stubborn or maximalist. We just don't want to go through all the drama and effort of a change which leaves those problems 100% unsolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of that wording, but I would just leave it as "clearly describe their function." No need to add "in plain English", as it's redundant to "clearly". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why not just have something like A customized signature must contain an exact copy of the actual username. It's simple, and I see no good reason not to comply with this. And if there is a good reason, well, it's only a guideline ... Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Apaugasma: That's heading in the right direction, but it allows the username to be buried in other text, or for the username not to be the linked text. A little more precision is needed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: you are right; what about this: A customised signature must contain an exact copy of the actual username. Any other characters used should not render it unclear what the exact username is. We can just keep the immediately following A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page. You are encouraged to also provide a link to your user page. I note that this proposal is less stringent than yours, but I think it does the job, and it is perhaps also more likely to succeed. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Apaugasma: I disagree that it does the job. That would still permit unhelpful stuff this:
        --[[User:Example|Its me!]] make an Example of me
        I get that you are trying to simplify and to soften the tone, but it seems to me that the whole exercise is pointless if the outcome still has loopholes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @BrownHairedGirl: I think that, in the example you give, the other characters used do render it unclear what the exact username is. But perhaps we could put it like this: Any additional characters, text, links, or markup should not render it unclear which part of the signature is the username. Shouldn't that do it? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I could hardly sleep so back again. Reading this exchange frustrates me. BrownHairedGirl, you sound as though you want perfection and no compromise. You should know that's not how Wikipedia works. You won't get the perfect solution past the wider community, so let's try to find middle ground.
          • The bullet points above contain the following suggestions:
            1. Signatures may contain additional text in addition to the username, as long as it does not violate another part of this guideline.
            2. An abbreviation of a username is an acceptable signature (TNT for TheresNoTime, for example)
            3. A variation on a username is an acceptable signature (an alternative spelling or backwards, for example).
          • I can't see why we can't work within these parameters. I am disappointed by your tone, as it seems you want to order all signatures to be like yours. You're not an admin, s please stop acting like one. doktorb _words^deeds 04:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Doktorbuk: please don't make this about tone. BHG has given her reasons above why she thinks abbreviations and variations should also be disallowed. I agree with those reasons. Perhaps, when you've gotten some sleep, you can argue why the reasons do not suffice? Best, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
              • @Apaugasma: Thanks your for response. I'm sorry to say that BHG has frustrated me because you have tried to come up with a compromise and they have batted you back, most recently because of the potential for "loopholes". We have to find compromise and it seems BHG, having instigated a bad tempered ANI is now set on being uncivil towards other editors here. My signature has been fine for over a decade. I can't see why this has to change because someone who is not an admin is demanding we follow their exact and particular demands. doktorb _words^deeds 04:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
                • Well just stay assured then that there are others, like Ahecht above and also me, who share BHG's particular concerns. To meet those concerns, either your signature or your username would have to change, and I understand that's not a very pleasant thought. But it would improve the experience and usability for a lot of other users. I strongly suspect that the requirement to have an exact and easily identifiable copy of the username in the signature would be supported by a lot of users, perhaps even by a majority. I definitely think it should be one option to choose from in a potential RfC. Let's just take the perspective where this position is one among many respectable positions, and where we can debate its merits and its shortcomings. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Apaugasma: "To meet those concerns, either your signature or your username would have to change" - that's not true. There are many options available as this is not an RFC and nothing yet has been decided beyond this open discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @Doktorbuk: I am very sorry that my comments have come across as some sort of criticism of you. That was not at all my intention, and am annoyed with myself that some excessively terse phrasing may have given that impression.

                    I know that you had no absolutely intention to make difficulties for others, and I entirely accept that you were unaware of the issue. I am very sorry if that was not clear from my comments.

                    My point is simply that a sig which does not clearly display the actual username causes problems in threaded discussion. Most editors are like you unaware of the problems, but they do exist, in two ways:

                    1. A post is signed "Craic Sean" (markup: [[User:Example|Craic Sean]]). An editor who replies can't just create a ping by copying the displayed name. They have to burrow a bit, or use a tool such as the reply-to widget, to create {{Ping|Example}}
                    2. Having made the ping, the resulting thread shows a post signed by Craic Sean, with a reply directed at Example. That is confusing to everyone else reading the thread.

                    That is one of the reasons why I hold out for clear display of the exact username. Any deviation in the displayed name makes it harder to follow the discussion, and harder to correlate the usernames against page histories, contribs lists etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    There are lots of things that make discussions here hard or annoying to follow. Incorrect indentation, replying to the wrong person, font tags, single letter usernames, usernames that are also common words, you name it. We've managed for the last 20 years to work with quirks such as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington signing as Nearly Headless Nick, a harmless joke that helps to lighten the mood. Yes, it makes things slightly more difficult. But so does your signature: from experience with other people's signatures, your name could also be "Brown", "BROWN", or "HairedGirl". —Kusma (t·c) 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @Kusma: Huh? My sig clearly displays my exact username. In what way does it make anything more difficult for anyone?

                    And sure, there are many other flaws with talk pages. But that's no reason not to fix what we can, and the fact that we have endured with this problem for 20 years is no reason to continue to endure it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    But here's the thing. Talk pages should be improved long before signatures should. And I supported you 24 hours ago, I'm now somehow distracted/bounced into this back and forth. One thing from this discussion alone: why are we having to count how many *'s and :'s we're using to ensure the correct indentation? It's messy, slow and outdated. Solving talk pages overall, outwith this discussion, granted, should be our focus. You were right, BHG, to ask one editor to ensure their signature matched their user-name because there was no connection at all. We're now in this back and forth arguments over something that's been blown out of all proportion. We can survive for 20 years with my signature missing 2 letters. doktorb _words^deeds 21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @Doktorbuk: the fact that we can survive another 20 years with a problem is no reason not to fix the problem. We could have survived without article alerts and pings and mouseover popups and longer edit summaries and DEFAULTSORT and so on, but why not aspire to do a little better than just survive?

                    The only thing that's blown out of all proportion is the reactions of some editors who would need to make a small change to their sig. I am genuinely puzzled by the strength of your reaction to a proposal which would require you to make a one-off change to your user prefs: restore 2 characters to your sig. It should take maybe 30 seconds to find the setting and change and save it.

                    Please can explain why you are putting so much energy into opposing that change? It's a minor issue, and you were unaware that it caused minor inconvenience to others ... but now that you know about those unintended consequences, I don't get why you seem so upset about possibly being required to change it. I don't want to see you upset, so please can you explain why thus seems to be such a big deal for you that you lose sleep over it? I don;t understand, and would like to understand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    BrownHairedGirl, there are people who have fancy signatures of the type Example of an Awesome User, and it is not immediately obvious whether their username is "Example", "Example of an Awesome User" or "Awesome User". So people who have seen other signatures could misunderstand yours.
                    The "problem" of signatures some being different from a preferred standard is not large enough to justify the disruption that enforcing a new rule against the preferences of thousands of good faith users will bring. (I still remember the userbox wars). —Kusma (t·c) 21:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @Kusma: that doesn't answer my question. You specifically said that my sig "makes things slightly more difficult" Please explain how my sig makes things more difficult, so that I can fix it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @BrownHairedGirl: the word "Brown" is highlighted in brown in your sig. It is not a priori obvious whether this is a style choice or carries meaning (in which case your username could be "Brown", or the wikilink-colored "HairedGirl"). The ambiguity is small and easily resolved, but only by of the three things you seem to be opposed to: knowing from previous interactions how your signature corresponds to your username, hovering over the name to see where it links to, or looking at the wikitext. I don't see any need for you to change your sig, but I don't see that need for most other sigs, either. —Kusma (t·c) 06:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @Kusma: It seems to me that you have not actually identified any problem with my sig. I reckon that what you have observed is a different problem: that the existence of other sigs which obscure the username have a wider corrosive effect, by making every displayed name suspect.

                    I think that's an important issue. The fact that some displayed names are misleading means that every displayed name is suspect: yours, mine, and everybody else's needs to be checked. This can be resolved only by eliminating the divergence, so that editors can rely on the username displayed in a sig, with the same certainty that they can attach to usernames displayed in a page history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

                    Yup, none of these sigs are an issue. It is fine to use colour for emphasis and it is fine to use colour for meaning. (The vast majority of Wikipedians are smart enough to figure out which is which). The only thing corrosive here is the attitude that we must make rules for everything. —Kusma (t·c) 14:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The essential tensions here are between "Usability" and "Customability", and that is best understood as a spectrum. The more usable a thing is, the less customization it can support. Talk pages are terrible. Half the reason they're terrible is that the Signature comes at the end of the statement. The next third of the reason is that they're impossible to easily scan for content by a specific user, and that's made even more difficult when that user's signature doesn't match the actual or the expected user name.
  (I shall spare you my rants on talk pages but just remember that in all communication software written after 2001, you don't have to cut and paste a user name to reply to them. I've been thinking about a way for MediaWiki to write signatures to page in a kind of programmatic way that could avoid that entire thing, but it's just edge thoughts. The reply gadget does most of my thoughts already, when it works.)--Jorm (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  My point here is to ask this: what, exactly, are talk pages for? If they're for just shooting the shit and idle chatter? Then sure, go wild, make your sig invisible, who cares. But if they're supposed to serve a usable purpose then it is our duty to do everything in our power to make that purpose easier to accomplish, which means uniform signatures, since that's literally the only thing enforceable by the software.

  (Everyone tells me they're for "collaboration" and "working on articles" but the stats don't show that. The data shows people talking. That's the job of a talk page. It's in the name.) Jorm (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Entirely uniform signatures wouldn't be it though: custom colors and markup can make it a lot easier to quickly scan who wrote what in a discussion, and should be encouraged. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 05:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC) (as I wrote above, not commenting on mine; haven't got around to it yet)

• I'm fine with requiring the username to appear somewhere in the signature (as a replacement for the two quoted bullet points). It's a simple proposal, won't affect most people, and matches what some people have been told in the past. Looking forward to an RfC. (I can also start it, if you want.) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Disclaimer: I've signed my name as Кузьма for a while). Customised signatures not including the username exactly are mildly annoying, as they require more work and attention while composing pings. They are not in the least disruptive, though. I'd be happy to support something like "please include your exact username in your signature, otherwise people will think you are being annoying on purpose. If you don't like to display your username, please consider changing it". I would also suggest to leave people alone whose signatures don't comply with the rules (whatever they are) if they only post on discussion type pages rarely. People enforcing signature rules appear to me to have a far more disruptive influence on the atmosphere here than people breaking them. Be kind. —Kusma (t·c) 08:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'd support moves to enforce this, per BHG and Cullen. Signatures exist to help other editors know who made a particular comment. That's their sole purpose, and while I have no problem with people who decide to make theirs frilly and colourful, the username must appear somewhere therein. Not doing so makes threads harder to follow, in particular when looking through edit histories and when matching up pings to comments in threaded discussions. And is therefore detrimental to our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I also oppose grandfathering. While I am probably familiar with many of the more prolific editors and their sigs, the above issues still apply to them (particularly for newcomers to the project), and creating an exception for them just because they're veterans is not fair. The simple solution in those cases is in any case to retain the "funny" name but put the real one in brackets after it.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What would you do in my case? doktorb _words^deeds 08:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Doktorbuk: User:Doktorb is usurpable. Is there some reason you don't just change your username to "Doktorb" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Remove most of the list and replace it with a *short* list of hard 'No you may not have this in your sig'. Eg 'Do not violate WP:ACCESS, no flashing/animation, maximum character length'. The only real requirement for a signature is that it contains a direct link to a user's talk page for click-through. If you are responding to someone within a discussion, you can call them by whatever they have signed as, people will know who you are talking to. If you are clicking through to their talk-page, its irrelevant whats in their sig as you are in the right place. If it makes it harder to ping someone specifically? Here is a newsflash, lots of editors hate pings. The ping system has removed any effort on the part of editors to actually leave a polite note on other's talkpages, its abused by trolls, and its made it trivially easy to round up a posse. Its also un-needed in most situations, as if you are seeing the displayed sig for the first time, you are going to be looking at a discussion they are already involved in.

The more criteria and rules about what people should be doing, just increases the amount of opportunities for nosy busybodies to engage in make-work & bullying. Its about exerting power over others and the thread that started this discussion is a classic example of why excessive bureaucracy is a bad thing.

All of the above however does not address the issue that signature guideline is not a policy. While it is not a policy, it will not be enforced evenly amongst those with greater power. It will be enforced (as guidelines often are) against soft weak targets. I would support a harder policy on signatures, but only if it is a policy, while it is a guideline I wont support anything that enables editors to engage in selective bullying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I find pings can be helpful, but usually unnecessary. For instance, when I login, I'm usually notified of a reply without the necessity of being pinged; pings show up as a different notification. Several years ago, I was in a discussion, and while the editor was in good faith, they're repeated pinging me was very annoying. And as you mentioned, there's room for abuse of the ping system, though that can be addressed similarly to addressing disruptive edits. Do we define signatures based on identification, the ease of pinging someone, or other? Believe it or not, I've been informed previously that I was overusing Template:No ping, and I found this humorously ironic, but a respectable request. I think it ties into the ping, or not to ping part of the signature discussion. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally disagree with Only death here. Pings are probably one of the best innovations of recent times, in terms of making it easy to have joined-up and timely conversations, without having to rely on someone spotting your reply on their watchlist or having to leave a note on their talk page. Also, "signature guideline is not a policy" is a bit irrelevant. Guidelines are also expected to be followed, absent other considerations, and should this discussion here end up with an RFC proposing that we enforce the guidelines (which I would support) then that would become the new process going forward, presumably with the use of blocks for noncompliance. This may seem like an over-reaction, but these signatures are a genuine annoyance, for very little gain to the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, Thank you! I'm more partial to "thanks" but I'm glad people like pinging.--Jorm (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be in favour of simply disabling custom signatures. They do nothing to help improve the encyclopedia and encourage playing silly buggers with the resulting drama (as here). Alexbrn (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that we want to encourage international collaboration and invite editors with non-Latin usernames to also participate here. It becomes easier to talk about them if they have a custom signature containing a nickname that isn't their username. See WP:NLS. 苦思馬 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC) that's not my real sig

  Limiting en.wiki account names to Latin characters only would solve that more cleanly, wouldn't it? Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  The issue with that is that many people don't primarily edit enwiki, but might be active on e.g. ruwiki or hiwiki as well – requiring people to have multiple global accounts because of different scripts does not strike me as a sensible idea. Softblocking someone just because their username is spelt "Блаблуббс" instead of "Blablubbs" is excessive and probably fairly discouraging for the users in question. --Blablubbs|talk 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Its not even worth exploring, anything that would inhibit or otherwise interfere with full and free use of SUL would quickly result in the WMF getting out a big stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  The whole "global account" concept is just typical IT grandiosity, that serves no purpose in helping to build any particular encyclopedia - but rather works against it by encouraging high-friction usernames into local wikis. Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  There are solid technical reasons behind it and it is not exactly unique, I dont expect to have to have different gmail/amazon etc accounts for any country I happen to be in. Being able to edit ENWP/Commons/Wikidata with one user-login is a good enough reason by itself, thats before we get to other language wikis. The only place it really falls down is local policy application. One example being when an editor on ENWP laughably claims (on ENWP) they have not outed themselves despite confirming their RL identity on another language wiki while using a SUL-linked account. Yeah mate, if you wanted to keep your identity obfuscated, dont use a SUL username. The problem with SUL isnt SUL or its implementation, its that local policies often fail to take into account the technical reality and bigger picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, Limiting names to Latin characters is, honestly, racist. I know it may not look that way or feel that way, but by enforcing such a policy one is literally saying "this language is superior to others".--Jorm (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Congratulations! you've made the most stupid post on Wikipedia today! IT systems regularly restrict character repertories for operational reasons. I imagine you now screaming at you mobile phone's keypad for being racist. What silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn: I'm going to be kind here.

  1. I don't know any serious technical organization who doesn't store text in UTF-8. Storing text in low-number ASCII is a thing that hasn't really happened since the mid-aughts, so you should probably retire that argument. It certainly doesn't hold water here, where MediaWiki absolutely supports and stores all character sets.
  2. There is a significant difference between the technology used to input content (the keyboard) and the technology used to read content. You are conflating the two. Input mode acceptance is you and your keyboard. If you only use an en-US keyboard, that's great. Personally, I use en-US and ʻŌlelo Hawai‘i; your milage may vary.
  3. Input methods aren't racist, nor are content readers. Policies are racist. A policy that says "only English-reading names are accepted" is, quite literally, racist.
  4. I am not calling you a racist. I am trying to educate you about language imperialism.

  Hope that helps.--Jorm (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Cool story, Bro. Maybe you should go back to what you are good at; mocking cancer survivors. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  What patronizing posturing bollocks. If you're going to play the I'm-so-righteous nuclear "racist" card you need at least to say something that shows you not to be so bloody ignorant. CJK institutions typically do not want to use "UTF-8" (which is an encoding method, not a character set) for content as it is inefficient for their repertoire. They tend to use UTF-16. Before you start launching forcible attacks you should at least get some basics in order. The point is simply that for restricted locales it is good to have have systems that are in sympathy with those restrictions, and that indeed might be to do with the fact that some character sets are less sophisticated than others. This has nothing to do with any "language" being "superior" to any other "language", but plenty to do with practical realities of interacting across mixed locales in an international context. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  k.--Jorm (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's no need for any of this: as Rhododentrites put it in their draft RfC, we could perfectly have something like If a username uses non-Latin script, the signature must include the username itself, but can additionally include a Latinized version. Shouldn't pose too much of a problem. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think custom signatures are inherently a bad thing (they can occasionally be helpful in quickly identifying users on large discussion pages for example), but I'd support strong wording that mandates that a signature must include your full, unmodified username in a way that makes it unambiguously clear what the username is – I'm fine with
  Peter Exampleman ([[User:Blablubbs]]) or Peter aka. [[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]]
  but not with
  [[User:Blablubbs|B14b1ubb$]] or [[User:Blablubbs|Bla-Peter Exampleman-lubbs]].
  The only important bright line for me is that a signature should make it possible to copy-paste the username into {{yo}} without having to read the source of a page. --Blablubbs|talk 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Without the wikitext, it is hard to know what the username is even if it appears in the signature. You are always just making a guess. I'm not sure that forcing users to display their entire 100-character username is a good idea: when you ping those, you might want to pipe them to something shorter anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with some of your suggestion, Blablubbs, but not entirely. It does make it easier to find a user in a discussion, but is that just a convenience? Kusma also has an excellent point; I don't know what the character limit is for usernames, but perhaps that should be evaluated also. Perhaps if the username was truncated so that the first (quantity) characters of the username are required to be part of the signature, but not the whole username. Just enough to satisfy a text search for that user. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, strike the above. After reading others' comments, I feel like the copy-paste test I propose, while I still think it's a good idea in principle, may be a bit too rigid. The current guidelines, if enforced reasonably, are probably enough. --Blablubbs|talk 12:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd not really considered copy-pasting into a ping template without having to read the page source (probably because I (a) use the source editor, and (b) have just gotten used to grabbing the username from the wikitext). However, given that doing things this way (having the full unmodified username displayed) makes for easier discussion I'd support the change. As such I've modified my signature slightly to comply - while my username was patently obvious, it wasn't copy-pasteable because of my silly Unicode embellishment, now 86'd. firefly ( t · c ) 12:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Firefly, that's one of the points that isn't clear to me. It appears that the main goal is to make it easy to ping someone in a discussion by making it easy to copy the username. Assuming you're posting your comment in your usual wikitext editor, is it actually necessary to make it easy to copy the username from the rendered/reading/HTML page, also known as "the page you can't see right now, because you have the editing window open"? I assume that most of us copy from the wikitext (which gives you the whole link, assuming that there is a User: link at all [rather than only a User_talk: link]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think the main goal is about pings at all. I think the main goal is to be able to understand the conversation flow and find the remarks made by a particular user. It should not be necessary to read the source code to understand who is commenting and who is being referred to in a conversation. Ping seems like less of a problem to me, because I edit the source to produce a ping already, and I can see what the hidden username is when I do that. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  The ping thing is somewhat relevant for users using the non-beta reply tool in source mode, but I sort of see it as a heuristic: If your signature does not actually identify you in a way that makes it possible for me to find or ping you simply by typing your username into {{yo}} or the search box at some later date, then it isn't really doing the job that a signature is supposed to be doing. --Blablubbs|talk 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• To separate potential RfC structure discussion from more general discussion, I've started User:Rhododendrites/signature rfc drafting and would invite others to edit or discuss a possible RfC there. Hopefully that simplifies things rather than further complicates them. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the draft RfC linked to above is to be discussed at its talk page: User talk:Rhododendrites/signature rfc drafting. Took me some time to figure that out. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest any RFC be on the fundamental question or else offer just 2 choices. 3 or more choices would create a math problem.North8000 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. The core issue is clear and quite simple, so please don't overcomplicate the proposal.

If we can resolve the core issue of displaying the exact username as a link title, then other issues can be dealt with in followup RFCs, for those who still have any energy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What you're looking for (the italics you posted above) is not, frankly, going to find consensus. That doesn't mean I disagree, but based on what I'm seeing above (and every other time this comes up), there's not going to be an appetite for anything so rigid. That doesn't mean we can't ask about it, but it does mean that an RfC which doesn't explore compromises and types of exceptions (which would satisfy many of the people here) would not IMO be fruitful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my view entirely. We have guidelines that work. They're in need of a fresh-up and tidy, but they're pretty much fine. They've caught someone whose sig and name are almost on different planets. They shouldn't catch someone with just two letters difference. doktorb _words^deeds 03:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk and Rhododendrites: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but my simple point is being repeatedly ignored, so I have to repeat it:

Compromise can be great, but in this case a compromise is logically impossible because anything less than 100% equivalence between username and displayed-name gives 0% utility in pings and in searching page histories. Either they match or they do not match ... so please don't pretend that this talk of exceptions and slight variations is a compromise. It's well-intended, but in effect it is a wrecking amendment.

And Doktorbuk, the current guidelines clearly do not work. I just had a wasted trip to ANI because too few editors were wiling to deprecate even a complete lack of correlation between username and display. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

But come on @BrownHairedGirl:, you and I have been on this rodeo for long enough to know that compromise is how Wikipedia works. 100% equivalence is a pipe-dream. You found one user with wholly unrelated sig and username, and it was fruitless because that user seemed to be a bit of a stubborn old goat. The user was at fault, not the guidelines. You'll not get 100% compliance to concrete, hard and fast, BHG-approved rules. You just won't. You need to work towards a middle ground. doktorb _words^deeds 03:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: I am frustrated that you appear not be making any effort to read what I have written about why a compromise is not technically possible.

So I will try asking you a question: what variation on a username which is less than 100% equivalent can be used to make a ping?

Take any registered username you like, modify it however you like, and show me how it works as a ping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your point is not being ignored. Pings is just one part of this. Consistency is another. Enforceability is another. Abbreviations vs. variations vs. totally unrelated text is another. By focusing entirely on your own binary choice you dismiss the rest, but by asking about several options we still have the possibility of finding consensus to do what you want -- it's just one configuration among other possibilities. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I am not dismissing the rest. I am asking others not to use terminology which (I assume unintentionally) obfuscates the effect of their proposal.

So dropping 100% equivalence is not a compromise. It's a 100% abandonment of the usability goal of facilitating pings and searches. You may have good reasons for dropping that goal, but please be clear what it involves.

Other goals may be pursued, and those other goals may be worthwhile. But if this going to an RFC, we need some clarity about what effects are of particular options. Your draft RFC is a helpful start to the process, and it's great that you did that work. But after thinking about it for a while it seems to me the path we all set off here (and on which you followed through in the draft) is in hindsight the wrong one: we have focused on the format rather than the functionality.

I now think that the questions we need ask should come from the opposite direction. What we should be asking the community to decide is: what a sig is for? What functions does it need to fulfil? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, This is exactly what I was trying to say above: Asking what the purpose actually is. Form follows Function, as it were.--Jorm (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: I am sorry that I overlooked your prev post. I just found it[1], and yes, we are very much on the same path. "Form follows function" is exactly right, but this discussion so far has started with form. (Please note that I am not casting aspersions on anyone. I have been a busy part of that mistaken focus on form).

Please can we work together to try to define the issues, and draft a few questions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries! This entire conversation is getting crazy. I have spent a lot of time thinking about Talk pages and signatures. I think a new section should probably be opened.

I think also it would be good to a) assume that the WMF will provide zero technological implementation support to us, so therefore we are stuck with the tools we have, and b) that we understand the technological limitation of Echo, which is that it can only "ping" people if 1) The ping text is included correctly in the edit that inserts the signature of the commenter. It is not possible to "fix" a ping.

Also technically you don't need a template to trigger it. It's just the text: [[User:Jorm]] Jorm (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: I've long had this question, and perhaps you could answer it: does it also work when the link to the user page is piped, as in, e.g., [[User:JzG|Guy]]? WP:ECHO doesn't mention this. It's especially relevant when the username and the signature don't match (as in my example). Apaugasma (talk|☉) 06:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

.... it should. If it doesn't, I think that would be a bug. I haven't actually tested that in a long time. Maybe this will work? I know I designed it that way. Jorm (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jorm, it did work, as you could also now confirm. Thank you for bearing with me, and for designing this stuff, Apaugasma (talk|☉) 07:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Point 3 is likely the best, perhaps with a grandfather clause for a couple months of active editing for anyone who would qualify. An indefinite grandfather clause is not helpful. Signatures that don't clearly relate to the name of the account are unhelpful and harmful in that it confuses people who may wish to go to a user's talk page or contributions. So long as a signature resembles the username enough as to not cause confusion, what's the problem with acronyms, abbreviations, etc? As an example, I don't think anyone is going to be confused by my username/signature. I agree with those above that it should be put to the community to be a policy that custom signatures must be understandable enough to not cause confusion when the person clicking them is shown the actual username (ex: userpage/contribs history/etc). This allows for acronyms, abbreviations, fancy text, etc - but ensures that the signatures are useful. Beyond that policy, further guidance should be had but not enforced. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, I was watching the history of this page and noticed that you contributed, so I opended the page and ctrl-F'ed "Ber", but found nothing, and only then remembered you're one of those users who don't have their exact username in their sig. Also, I write up my replies from a text editor, so when I want to ping anyone I need to open up their userpage and copy-paste the username from there. Both of these are minor annoyances which would be resolved by requiring the exact username to be present (and that's counting that I'm a bit computer-savvy, which not all new users are). The site would be more usable in various ways by this simple requirement. But perhaps this is a cultural thing that would be very hard to change. Apaugasma (talk|☉) 02:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I can see that reasoning, but keep in mind that would eliminate signatures that have characters separating parts of the username for valid reason - for example, if I signed Berc|hanh|imez, that would prohibit it. This would also mean that people with non-latin usernames would be forced to include them, as opposed to a transliteration or latinized version. That's why I can't support anything more than I suggested as policy. I'm obviously okay with those things being as guidelines, but we shouldn't mandate them. Not to mention the fact that usernames can be varying lengths - I don't think people with longer usernames should be forced to include them in lieu of an acronym. Sure, it's hard, but you can always click the "diff" button on my edit to see what I sign as and copy that - it's one more click for you, and it's no harder to see my comments once you realize what I sign as (IPA pronunciation of my username). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: that "once you realise" thing is problematic, because it unnecessarily forces editors to take an extra step. Your fellow editors should not have to go on a journey of discovery between your sig and your username. (Yes, it's not a huge journey of discovery in respect of any one editor. But multiply that by every editor who does it and every page they save an edit on, and it starts to add a significant overhead).

Surely there is a simple both/and solution here: sign your post with both your username and however you want the name displayed. This could be done in several different ways:

Current sig	markup	display
Current sig	:bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]])	bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!)
ALT1	bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]])	bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User:Berchanhimez/say hi!)
ALT2	[[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]] (Say bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]])	Berchanhimez (Say bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez/say hi!)

Those are just quick suggestions. I am sure there are other ways of achieving a both/and solution, but I just wanted to demonstrate that it can be done simply and easily. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

But why force people into using generic signatures? We don't do that now. If that's your goal, state it. doktorb _words^deeds 03:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: a little AGF would help. The examples I suggested to Berchanhimez are very clearly not generic. So why on earth do you suggest that I am trying force people into using generic signatures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And to pick up on what bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez has said, there will be people with non-Latin names, long names, names with their own (valid) characteristic flair to their signatures, people who may have valid reasons to abbreviate their names, people who just plain like their signatures to be different, who are now penalised. Remember some users have been here for 10+ years, and might have just got plain bored with their sigs. Why penalise all these people? doktorb _words^deeds 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

People with long usernames would be the kind of exception which we would allow, this being a guideline and not policy. I don't see a good rationale to make any of this into policy anyways: we can and should enforce this guideline in the absence of a good reason to contravene it. Yes, people with non-Latin usernames would be asked to include them, which shouldn't be too much of a problem, unless again if they are too long, but then the same exception would apply. I guess that people who would have to change their signature to comply with the new guideline would generally oppose such a change, while those who wouldn't need to change anything might support, and perhaps it's not important enough to have such a fuss about it any case. The last thing I'd want to do is to penalise. Apaugasma (talk|☉) 03:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I definitely support a smoothing out and tidying up of guidelines. I can't support enforced rules suddenly appearing. Extremists who want only hard and fast unshakeable rules don't get far here, in my experience, and hopefully a suitable compromise of guidelines can come out of this. Non-Latin names really should be treated carefully. I don't agree with the "racism" claim above, but I do express caution in forcing users into English/the Latin script as a kind of "penalty". doktorb _words^deeds 03:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, It's really easy. If someone told you that you had to change your name because they couldn't pronounce it, you'd call that racist, yes? When immigrants went through Ellis Island and got renamed? That was racism. It's not "lynch folk" racism, but it's still a colonist tendency. The fact is, though, we don't have to worry about it. MediaWiki supports the character sets.--Jorm (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Jorm Oh don't misunderstand me, I agree on the priniciple of what you're saying. Your examples are valid, they were racist policies, and are racist attitudes. I can't go as far as to use the word in relation to this matter. But I am uneasy, as you are, about guidelines being turned into hard and fast rules that would penalise editors into changing their signatures on the say-so of (broadly defined) Western editors. doktorb _words^deeds 03:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk and Apaugasma: some people are making very heavy going of a very simple issue. The actual, precise username is a crucial piece of info in working collaboratively. Omitting it or modifying it in any way places a wholly un-needed obstacle to collaborative working. Yes it's only a small obstacle, but it's an obstacle that has to be crossed by every other editor who interacts with those who don't display their actual username.

And as I have note before, a compromise is not possible here. If a displayed name is not a 100% match for the username, it cannot be used at all in pings, and will usually not work searching page histories, etc.

Non-latin names need no special treatment. Just display them as they are written, and after link add any other text you want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

IMHO the concept the user name has to be at least clear in the signature is quite likely to gain consensus. Probably likely to have just a few opposes. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Depends a bit on the wording. Are abbreviations of long names ok? Is it ok to leave out the ~foowiki that SUL produced at some point? Is is ok to have extra text in the signature as in "Only in death does duty end"? I am supportive of demanding that sigs be closely connected to the username, but oppose "from looking at the page and not the wikicode, it must be obvious to anyone what the username is", which outlaws not only Nearly Headless Nick, but also many of Praxidicae's sigs, Only in death's sig, doctorbuk's sig, Piotrus' sig, and arguably BrownHairedGirl's. —Kusma (t·c) 13:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Since I'd guess that 99% of Wikipedians have a signature which is simply their user name, I don't have broad experience with ones who don't. Or to have an opinion on exactly what the rule should be. And the ~99% is what I had in mind when I guessed at the likelihood of a moderate "user name is at least clear in the signature" concept gaining consensus. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: I think that your 99% guess is about right. I might guess 98% of active users, but close enough.

That raises a wider question. How come such a tiny minority has the community from upholding impeded the clarity of having a displayed name which can be relied upon to exactly match the username? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Playfulness, adventurousness, eagerness to try out new technoselfs, ... something the majority of editors might not be interested in experimenting with. I don't think that minority is to be blamed. This has been allowed, and probably rarely caused explicit or obvious communication problems in these users' experience. I don't think it's a tyranny of the few, it just grew this way. (I didn't say you called it 'tyranny' or blamed anyone, btw, just trying to get the point across). I, too, have often had to figure out who's actually who (and since Praxidicae was mentioned: it took me a while to recognize that pattern). It never really bothered me, so I've never said anything, but I can imagine how it can become confusing or annoying depending on the situation. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm serious: I'd like to know what you mean by "the concept the user name has to be clear in the signature" and how that applies to Only in death, Piotrus, doctorbuk and Praxidicae. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Piotrus: and @Praxidicae: since they're being discussed. I think it's only fair they know about it. — Ched (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ched: Thanks. Is there a problem with my sig? If so, I'd appreciate it if someone would explain it to me clearly. I haven't heard anything about any problem with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: This is a discussion that has come from an ANI and appears to have gone around in circles for little good reason. Your sig is within guidelines as far as I can see. This discussion aims to address if the guidelines need tightening. doktorb _words^deeds 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• This seems like a pointless proposal for the sake of bureaucracy. If someone is attempting to mislead via their signature, that is one thing and already covered under policy. It's also too prone to being a gray area in terms of being readily identifiable. Right now my signature is fully compliant with our policies, as it's correctly linked and this would require hundreds of editors who have shortened their signatures for various reasons (ugly formatting, shits and giggles, what have you) to change it. This would also eliminate non-latin usernames, like one of our phenomenal stewards, Alaa, who most non-Arabic speakers know him as and would be very confusing and difficult to respond to User:علاء. If we're going to be pedantic about all of this, why not just eliminate custom sigs all together? YODADICAE👽 14:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: your statement that my signature is fully compliant with our policies is untrue.

Yes, your sig is linked, which complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P #2.

However, WP:CUSTOMSIG/P #1 says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username" ... and the displayed text "YODADICAE" has no immediately obvious connection to your username "Praxidicae".

Maybe there is some sort of Latin-language joke in there, but requiring your fellow editors to parse a Latin joke absolutely does not "make it easy to identify your username". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point. There was no joke in my original comment about latin. It was that Alaa, a steward, is widely known by "Alaa", despite his username being arabic. Your proposal and subsequent temper tantrum about signatures would eliminate his use of a westernized name. And yes, my signature does readily and easily identify me because my userpage is linked and every time you respond you can see [[User:Praxidicae|my custom sig]]. If you believe my signature isn't compliant, I welcome you to bring it up at the appropriate notice board, BrownHairedGirl. YODADICAE👽 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We are here to collaborate to build an encyclopedia yes, the people mentioned are in fact here to do so and have proven themselves at that. Introducing a little levity into discussions on occasion is not a bad thing, this is after all a hobby for all of us, not a professional office. YODADICAE👽 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

More heat than light, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Praxidicae: a joke sig is not deployed on occasions. It is deployed every time you post a comment everywhere. Overused jokes grow old very fast. And there are a zillion ways to add levity without creating an obstacle course for your fellow editors who simply want to know the username of an editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Praxidicae: are you playing some sort of game? I addressed the issue of your sig, and the claims you made about it. I didn't miss any point about any other sig, because I didn't address that. It is crystal clear that displaying " YODADICAE" instead of "Praxidicae" is a blatant breach of the guidance that "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username" ... and no, I am not willing to waste my time in argument with someone who claims otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not playing a game, my comment about levity and my comment about Alaa's and other non-latin character usernames were two distinct comments. I find your outrage at this to be ridiculous, though and would appreciate you leaving my name out of it if you don't intend to actually follow up on your accusation that I am not compliant. Pro-tip the policy says: It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents which implies that short of me making it some nonsense gibberish that doesn't link to my userpage or talk or contribs, I am compliant. Your selective outrage over this matter is laughable given your previous comments about others potentially "not being here" while making some 50 odd edits and 2 days complaining about this non-starter. YODADICAE👽 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Praxidicae: you raised your username as an issue, so don't complain if someone responds to your claims about it. And your claim that writing "YODADICAE" instead of "Praxidicae" meets a requirement to resemble to some degree the username it represents is most benignly explicable as trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Keep calling me a troll. By your logic, the users I listed below, like KrakatoaKatie and others are also trolling and in violation of policy because it only contains part of their username. Or did you miss the 'dicae' at the end of each of my usernames? And the clear link to my user/talk pages? And the only reason I'm here is because I was discussed several times before someone gave me the courtesy of actually pinging me. YODADICAE👽 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) If you've been here for 11 years and have 2 million edits but can't figure out how to quickly and easily (mouse over, click!) see a custom sigs username, I really don't know what to tell you other than this is a stupid hill to die on. YODADICAE👽 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Praxidicae: Of course I figured out the workarounds years ago. I just resent that some editors enjoying disrupting Wikipedia by requiring their colleagues to waste time doing workarounds to intentionally-created obstacles. Your choice of phrases like stupid hill to die on are avoidably inflammatory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I just resent that some editors enjoying disrupting Wikipedia by requiring their colleagues to waste time doing workarounds to intentionally-created obstacles. lol have a nice cup of joe while you go dig up some diffs to support such an assinine statement. YODADICAE👽 15:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC) The diffs would be every comment you posted with your non-compliant sig, each of which creates an obstacle. Sadly, I am entirely unsurprised that you so rapidly resorted to personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Your gaslighting is pretty offensive. This is the exact bullshit that pushes good editors away who have proven themselves to be here to contribute instead of wasting their time engaged in some weird authoritarian/wannabe lawyer LARPing. YODADICAE👽 15:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC) The only gaslighting here is your repeated absuiveness, and your repeated bzarre asertiosn that "YODADICAE" somehow indicates to other readers discover that you user name is in fact "Praxidicae". The problm has been explained to you clearly and civilly, but you respond with bizarre rants. Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Please drop the stick. A substantial part of the community feels that the consistent "dicae" suffix is sufficient to identify that editor. There's an open question as-to whether it should be clearer for inexperienced editors, but you're supposing a problem that doesn't really exist. Most of the editors who are active enough to know the active editors aren't worried, apparently; otherwise there would be far clearer support here for your point of view. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC) For the record, I, personally, thought that "Praxidicae" and "Yodadicae" were separate editors until this very thread. Jorm (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Me too, @Jorm. And 力: created readily-avoidable types "insider jargon" like this is a well-known type of barrier to new entrants. The very fact that you distinguish between its accessibility to active editors and others describes a problem in the shape of an In-group and out-group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I second power~enwiki's comment. Drop the stick. It surely is confusing at times, but it should be clear by now that most people are glad to accept that as part of the freedom to have a fun, creative signature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that we have to comply with a lot of rules already when we do our work here. A little levity while chatting about our work = happier Wikipedians = better work. Remember that we're all volunteers and it helps if we enjoy what we do. —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

^^^ This Put the human back into Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Even when people do include their user name in their sig, it is often the case that they include other (linked) terms also, and it is not possible, without follwoing links, to see which is the actual user anme There are examles of this in this very section. Any policy mandating the incusion of usernalmes in sigs would need to preclude such obfuscation. (I'd be happy to add a "User:" prefix to the username in my sig if such a policy were introduced.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• My interpretation of the guideline is that abbreviations are acceptable. In my case, the signature just shows the full version of my username in chess notation. It's just a nod to my chess hobby, but it is no way confusing or misleading. It's a tweaked version and still related to my username, just as Prax's are. Yes, User:P-K3 would fail as a ping, but it is trivially easy to copy the correct wikitext. There will never be consensus to enforce exact representations of user names, that's just a non-starter.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• 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!}⚓ 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• This is one of those fights the community has that is caused by bad software. All other communications software on the internet (like email and forums) shows both the username and a custom signature. If we used something other than MediaWiki to communicate, we wouldn't be having this dispute at all. Levivich 21:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Script/gadget?

It seems to me that there's an easy solution here, but not one I feel confident in doing (nor would have the time to right now anyway). A user script (eventually gadget) could easily be written that would place the user's exact username in parenthesis or something right before the timestamp of signed (or {{unsigned}} templates) edits. Since all signatures are already required by policy to have a link to the user page or talk page, all such a script would need to do is find timestamps (already possible as there's a gadget to change timestamps into local time), search for the "user talk" or "user page" link that most immediately precedes it (i.e. not directly in front but simply the first one), and add a parenthesis (User:Berchanhimez) right before the timestamp. This gadget could be enabled by default if people like, but it would at least be usable by anyone who has a problem with custom signatures. I'm suggesting this because it looks clear to me that there's no consensus to prohibit custom signatures as a whole, and some people will always have a problem with something - so let's just give the people who have such a problem a way to solve it with a gadget. It wouldn't work for people with javascript disabled, sure, but there's a lot of things that don't work with javascript disabled. Not to mention that this would work on archived talk discussions too and not just going forward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This should work, as the reply-link script manages to do this. I like this because it solves the issue for those who are confused by custom signatures without having the social cost of forcing everybody to change their self-representation. —Kusma (Кузьма · कुस्मा · 𐌺) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The beta "discussion features" plus the Special:Preferences/editing preferences/discussion pages/"Enable experimental tools in the quick replying and quick topic adding features' source modes" works like magic and replaces any need to copy and paste for pings. Perhaps there is a technical solution here after all. —Kusma (Кузьма · कुस्मा · 𐌺) 09:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And as others have said, reply-link already automatically adds the person's username when you reply - but that script is complicated enough (or something else is b0rked) that it's not even working on this section. That's why I brought up a simpler script that does three things - look for timestamp, find most immediately preceding user(talk)page link, add (User:Username) next to the timestamp (either before or after) - the less it has to do the more likely it'll work everywhere and appease people. I'm wondering if someone "techy" may have a little bit to mock this sort of script up and allow people to see how it would work? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd need to include something so that it doesn't duplicate the user name when the exact user name is already in the signature. One other note, this has the same effect as mandating adding their actual user name to their signature when it is not already included. Which also seems like a pretty good solution....nobody has to "give up" anything. One more comment (unless I misunderstand the technical side of the proposal) the latter doesn't need WWF who gives anything community-driven at best a low priority. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I'm a software dev. I don't normally work in web software, but it's not really different enough to matter. I'm convinced this can be done, and be done rather easily. reply-link uses regular expressions, and though I haven't dug extensively through the code, I'd bet it looks for links to user pages or user talk pages to identify the username, as that's the obvious and easiest way to do it.

Identifying a timestamp is also pretty easy: number-colon-number-comma-space-number-word-number-space-"(UTC)" I loathe regular expressions (I've actually written an HTML parser that never once uses them), but even I could write a regex match for a timestamp or a user/usertalk link.

If I can find the time this weekend, I'll look into writing a simple script that will strip styling from signatures. It'll probably require you to have reply-link installed, as it's easiest to piggyback off of that, but that might not be the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I could certainly whip something up as well. Kephir's Unclutter script may also work for this purpose. I was considering opposing the proposal and saying "just use a script", but I've heard comments about new users finding logged-out signatures difficult, which is why my proposal exists. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A reader's perspective

I hesitate to enter this heated discussion, and am not even sure where this comment belongs, but I want to share a perspective that I haven't seen discussed above (although I certainly may have missed it in this long thread). I've been on Wikipedia for a few years, but mostly doing gnome-type work, and I've never to my recollection participated in any policy discussion. Nevertheless, I do often read pages like the Village Pump, the Help Desk and ANI, and feel I've gotten a lot of insight into policies and procedures by doing so. As a result of this discussion here, I'm realizing the source of some minor puzzlement I've experienced in reading such pages. For example, I've heard the name Praxicidae mentioned in discussions, and I've seen the signature "YODADICAE", but I never until today realized that these are the same person. I think I've seen people say something in a thread like "I agree with Praxicidae", and I've vaguely thought "hm, I don't remember seeing that person comment in this thread" but just moved along, without connecting the response to Praxicidae's original comment. Similarly, the name "Doktorbuk" mentioned above caused me some (brief this time) puzzlement, until I was able to glean from context that that is the user whose signature is "doktorb". This thread is making me think that this has happened a number of times, and that I've at least on some occasions not fully followed the flow of a conversation, because I've not been aware of who is being responded to, or if a reference is to something that was said in the current thread or somewhere else.

There's been a lot of talk above about how to make pings and other interactive features work smoothly, but my concern is simply that when reading a thread, I'd like to be able to follow who's responding to whom. It seems to me that if a user is mentioned by name in a thread, it should be easy to discover what that user has said, without going back through the thread, post by post, and clicking on any names that seem to be in some way related to the name I'm looking for. It doesn't seem an unreasonable desire to be able to follow the flow of a conversation by just reading it. Perhaps it's not considered terribly important that non-participants follow a conversation (I'm not being snarky, I can totally understand that viewpoint), but I just want to ensure that this particular impediment caused by custom signatures is understood. My apologies if this interjection isn't helpful. CodeTalker (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is great! Thank you for saying this. This is exactly what I was talking about up above, in my (long) comment to User:Kusma and literally proves my point. I wonder if this would be considered "sufficient documentation" to believe a problem exists. Jorm (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this and your perspective. And an apology, if one is needed, for "doktorb" not automatically referring to "doktorbuk" in your mind as you read. From my perspective, the guidelines are just that, guidelines, and as I retain enough of a relationship between "doktorb" and "doktorbuk" I am in no mood or desire to change things. However, you do make this view with fresh eyes, perhaps fresher than those of us who have filled this page with so much back and forth over the last few days. There may be a problem with the way the signatures are displayed, which is not necessarily the same as the way signatures are created. This sounds like splitting hairs, but I'm sure that we can find a technical solution - I see some have been suggested above - which would allow for editors to continue reflecting their own character through signatures in addition to the need to make identification easier for readers. I think we can all agree that the extreme position advocated by certain editors, that for uniform bland standardised signatures scaffolded by rules, is a complete non-starter in this context. doktorb _words^deeds 22:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

hi, I'm another newer user (who also happens to have a shorthand signature "MelecieDiancie" -> "melecie"), something like doktorb would easily be identifiable as Doktorbuk and ——Serial as Serial Number 54129, but some may be confusing like the aformentioned YODADICAE👽 / Praxidicae, as well as Guy / JzG, and Christopher, Sheridan, OR / DeNoel. also, something I noticed, customsigs can also make it easy for someone to see who wrote what at a glance, like say "oh, there's brown text and it starts with "Br", it must be BrownHairedGirl", or "it's green-purple-blue with a superscript, it must be Cullen³²⁸". by time ones that differ a bit like Praxidicae's would certainly also become recognizable as well, but to a newbie, it's still confusing, and hovering on where the link leads would show you the sig's owner, but it's time consuming that I think names in a signature should either be the username or an easily recognizable shorthand for such (so for example me MelecieDiancie, recognizable alternatives would likely be Melecie or Diancie, and something like MelDia would be borderline unrecognizable and for those it'll be evaluated in a case basis). • | melecie | t 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@MelecieDiancie and Doktorbuk: Mostly out of curiousity, I wonder why you want to have something other than your username in the signature. If you prefer melecie/doktorb to your actual username why not change the username to that? Neither of them are registered and I think such a request wouldn't face any issues. I can definitely relate to CodeTalkers annoyance at not immedietly connecting signatures and usernames, especially when I stumble into an area where I don't edit much with many new names. --Trialpears (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've actually been going back and forth between using Melecie or MelecieDiancie as a username in other places recently, and I feel like MelecieDiancie is slightly more personal (if I'm correct, Melecie is just the japanese name of Carbink), however I may end up switching to just using Melecie if I feel like it • | melecie | t 13:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to add that this discussion is taking place among self-selected power users. And perhaps many are personally proud of their fancy signature formatting, effort which they don't want to be invalidated. Admittedly I'm not really a new user, just a gnome of many years, but from at least the perspective of someone who frequents talk pages less often, why do customized signatures, especially ones that hide the username, need to exist? As an outlet for creativity at the cost of legibility? Learning about them is just another stumbling block for new users. It may seem minor, but again, the group talking here is self-selected for willingness to put up with Wikipedia's old-Internet weirdness such as html tags and talk pages being implemented as freely-editable wikitext documents (instead of perhaps something like a typical forum, bulletin board, or reddit). Mousing over the link, following it, or viewing the wikitext can clear it up (e.g. "Guy" is actually "JzG"), but why make a system that requires the user to take effort in de-obfuscating the displayed name? And these steps can be more difficult for people with technical restrictions such as a slow device/connection or who primarily use the keyboard. I'm happy to see User:Jorm's comments (such as the long one) and the follow-up by User:Whatamidoing (WMF), because for all that sometimes I see people complain about WMF decisions affecting Wikipedia, I think here they're useful to provide a perspective less attached to the in-group. Anyway, I'm at least for requiring signatures to distinguishably include the actual usernames. --Anon423 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of signatures

Here are some examples of signatures of Wikipedians that make it reasonably clear who they are referring to but do not match the exact string (some are substrings, some are superstrings, others are variations). As a semi-random place where experienced Wikipedians congregate, I chose WP:BN, more specifically Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 44. (I don't know whether all or even any of these users still sign this way. Do your own research if you want to know.)

• ~ Amory (u • t • c)
• King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
• ϢereSpielChequers
• ——Serial
• --qedk (t 愛 c)
• Jay(Talk)
• Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
• 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!

There are two bureaucrats and several sysops in the list. I don't believe their signatures hinder communication much, if at all. Certainly not nearly as much as has been claimed, and definitely not enough to do something as disruptive as outlawing this little piece of customisable self-expression. —Kusma (t·c) 15:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Noah^Talk
• YODADICAE👽 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Guy (help! - typo?)
• ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk
• Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF

And there doesn't seem to be any issue with communication there. YODADICAE👽 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was about to type something like this very section. My sig misses just two letters. It's not misleading. It's not problematic. It's not confusing. It's within current guidelines. It's within current rules. It has never been a problem over my entire time being here. Surely it will be more of a problem and disruption to change hundreds of perfectly fine signatures? doktorb _words^deeds 15:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, my point in identifying this was to show that contrary to the narrative by some here that users with custom signatures that are in fact compliant, just not in that particular user's taste are in fact here to build an encyclopedia and collaborate, as evidenced by the years of contributions. YODADICAE👽 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk, your name reminds me of User:Jamesofur, whose name is usually misread as "James o' Fur". If he had used a "mismatched" name ("James of UR"), it could have prevented years of confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• And lest we not forget some extremely tenured editors who have held positions within Arbcom, CU, oversight and crats:Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}, Worm^TT(talk, Katie^talk, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk, Amanda (aka DQ), Rob₁₃^Talk YODADICAE👽 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: To be clear, while BHG and some others are saying usernames must be presented exactly, some people just don't want them to be completely unrelated. Others just want whatever rule we have to be clear and applied evenly. The last of these is why I opened this thread. It began with an ANI thread in which someone who uses a signature that is entirely different from their username was being told that the rules require them to change it. But we don't force all users with such signatures to change, so why would we enforce it just with this one person? In that case, it clearly violates our bulletpoints on this page, so why is it ok sometimes but not others? The My goal here is to ensure that this guideline actually reflects practice/consensus rather than be applied arbitrarily. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand why you did it but I think the guidelines are already pretty clear and that the users listed aren't in violation. However, what I find unacceptable is the continued insinuation here by other users that editors like myself and the well respected list above are somehow not here, trolling or in violation of policy based on a reasonable interpretation of a policy that doesn't jive with a select few users over zealous, verging on authoritarian view of said policy. At the end of the day we are here to collaborate and build knowledge and I don't see any examples here where the collaboration portion is impeded. YODADICAE👽 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we are here to collaborate. I don't see anything remotely collaborative about conduct such as Praxidicae's absurdist claims that "YODADICAE" meets the WP:CUSTOMSIG/P #requiremnet that A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, or their trolling sneering at editors who object to being required to use workarounds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We have many people with many interpretations of the existing bulletpoints, and lots of examples of uneven application. Since the bulletpoint about linking to a user page and other bulletpoints about correspondence are separate, we can tell that, as written, just having a link to a user page does not on its own mean one is following the guideline. The other bulletpoints (quoted at the very top of this page) are more vague, and can be interpreted to allow all sorts of abbreviations, variations, etc. But if my username is Rhododendrites and I sign with "Bieberfan999" can we agree that's not in the spirit of these guidelines? Yet even in that kind of case, we only enforce it for some users (mainly new users and those who don't have lots of people showing up to defend them). That's a problem. If there's no consensus to enforce the guidelines, we shouldn't have them as part of our WP:PAG -- they should be an essay. If there's consensus to have them, they should be applied evenly or at least articulate that, say, if you were here before these guidelines existed then you're excepted (not ideal IMO, but clarity would be an improvement over the current situation). That's my perspective, anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

lots of people showing up to defend them: you have identified the core problem here. It's why the ANI thread didn't go as it should have (a lot of bickering and non-discussion instead of a quick and simple enforcement of a guideline which was ignored for no good reason), and it's the reason why BHG's proposal is doomed to failure. There are just too many highly experienced users who find the presence of a link to the user page in a signature wholly sufficient. To exactly what degree the text of a signature must be related to a username is a vague and subjective notion, therefore not worth of much attention, and so even editors with wholly unrelated signatures get a pass. It's sub-optimal from a usability perspective, it does confuse some users, but it's too ingrained in wikiculture to be much open to change. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a majority, who would want it to change, but for many others it's such a sensitive subject that even having an open discussion about it is a non-starter. Apaugasma (talk ☿) 19:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course the guideline wasn't enforced. At that ANI section it was aimed at one editor. It should have been aimed at all editors who have, to a certain degree, signatures that bend or break the guideline. You can't sanction one person and let the others off. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question has changed their username, and their signature now contains the username as a substring, so for everybody except perhaps some purists the matter should be closed. I suggest that future attempts to make users comply with any signature guidelines should try the approach of talking to the user nicely for a few days instead of Demanding Action, Now, especially on signatures that have been in use for a few years. —Kusma (Кузьма · कुस्मा · 𐌺) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, of course you can take action in one case without going through all others first. If not, nothing would or even could ever be done (this editor is POV-pushing, but what about all the other editors doing the very same thing? No POV-pusher should be sanctioned if we're not going to get at all the others!). But I know of no other editor who so blatantly violated the guideline as at that ANI case. Seriously, if even in that case nothing was done (in the sense of being enforced), it is time to change the guideline. Policies and guidelines reflect community consensus, so let's just remove the bit saying that a customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Apaugasma (talk ☿) 22:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma. If the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy has been enforced in general then it can be used to sanction any given editor. On the other hand if the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline has not been enforced in general then it needs changing and not chase after one editor. Look at the person who was dragged to ANI compared to the other names. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• More bureaucrats:
  • Avi (talk)
  • Amanda (aka DQ)
• It is quite common to have custom signatures that don't pass the "cut and paste from browser display to ping" test. Among highly active users, I don't think it is just the claimed 1-2% that fail this test, but closer to a quarter to a third of users. —Kusma (t·c) 15:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've only interacted with / about one of the above. Seeing other people talk about them by their actual user name and I saw their signature. Not that I explored or pondered it, but for a while I thought that they were two different people. I may be an oblivious dummy, but I'm an experienced oblivious dummy :-) so that means that it can confuse at least some of us. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I regularly hold my cursor over a signature to determine the actual username. So long as the link to the true userpage is correct, it is a matter of seconds to identify the poster, regardless of what they use in their signature. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Tooltips don't work in mobile, for a start. Jorm (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

But actually following the link should. -- Avi (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been using my nickname as my signature since I joined in 2005. There has rarely been a problem in the over 15 years since. The name links to my userpage and is in accord with guidelines, so I am not certain what the issue is here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The end....?

What would we agree on being the end or conclusion of this talk page's current conference of discussions? What's our end point? doktorb _words^deeds 21:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't specifically establish anything other than there is a big open question. My own opinion would be to formulate a "how far would you go?" question regarding requiring more clarity of the user name in the signature, and then give 4-5 ascending degrees of stringency and then have people answer that question. This is very different and less flawed than asking people to pick one of the 4-5 choices. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)