Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

"Customizing your signature" section issues

Very often do I see new users come to places like the WP:Teahouse wondering how to get a nifty signature like everyone else. Most people point them to WP:CUSTOMSIG, which redirects to the "Customizing your signature" section on this page. The issue is that a lot of people who are using wikipedia for the first time don't tend to actually read anything on the page and what it does, but just read the first thing they see (the "Customizing how you see your signature" section) and do what it says. They then add the css example to their common.css, thinking that it magically do what they want. This is an issue because 1. Now only they're going to see their "signature", and 2. If/when they notice this, they usually come back to the teahouse complaining about it not working, because they didn't read the page.

Now there are a couple ways that I think this could be remedied:

1. People telling new users how to make a custom signature should link instead to WP:FANCYSIG (or better yet WP:SIGTUT), because it's more likely what they're looking for
2. We rearrange the page so that "Customizing how everyone sees your signature" is above "Customizing how you see your signature"

The first option is just kind of sidestepping the issue because I feel as though customizing how everyone seems your signature is probably why 90% of people are going to be looking at this page in the first place, regardless of if they were linked from WP:CUSTOMSIG. Customizing how only you see it seems like a much more technical and less useful feature for something at the start of a section titled "Customizing your signature".

The second option seems better to me, but there could be some logistical issues. If "Customizing how everyone sees your signature" was the first subsection in "Customizing your signature", would there still be a need for a WP:FANCYSIG shortcut?

I'd also like to note that WP:Signature tutorial (as I mentioned above) does exist, and probably is better to link users to in some situations. It seems like a lot of people don't know this page exists, and it's a lot less technical, and includes examples, so you may want to familiarize yourself with it.

If you think I'm crazy and this isn't an issue, or that there is a better way to fix this, do tell! Thanks for the consideration, ― Levi_OP^Talk 17:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to do both. Most of the time when people are wanting to customize their signature, they're wanting to customize it in a way that everyone can see the customization, not just themself. Another alternative could possibly be swapping the shortcuts, although this may still continue to happen since I don't think people are getting them confused. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As I don't go in for fancy signatures (and rather dislike the two really dominant, dark ones that I see above this reply) I wasn't really aware of the issues with this page. But I agree entirely with the proposals. Especially 2): Move Customizing how only you see your signature would be far better off below Customizing your signature

I then recommend that the subsection Guidelines and policies comes before the actual detail on how to work with the markup. That guidelines section is also missing the blindingly obvious recommendation that I constantly have to tell new users about, and that is that not everyone has the vision of a fit 16 year old. Fluorescent yellows and greens against a bright white background, or dark fonts against a dark background simply aren't legible to many users - especially on small screens. I suggest adding:

• Try to ensure good contrast of font against its background; some users may well have difficulty discerning poorly-contrasting colours. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that addition as well. Also I would probably change my signature to be a bit different, however I'd probably break something since I have no clue what I'm looking at (because I don't understand CSS). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the input! Commenting on your dislike for the style of my signature, I'd recommend that if you haven't already, you read the section entitled Overriding custom signatures on this page. If signatures like my own don't have enough contrast, you can add some css to your common.css to force all signatures to be black and white. You could even get rid of custom signatures altogether if you wanted. ― Levi_OP^Talk 19:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levi OP No - don't worry; I see enough colour contrast in both your and Blaze's signatures. It's just that I have a personal dislike of incredibly dominant blocks of colour - in these cases lots of black - that standout too much for my liking. But it's just me, and I've absolutely no need to change anything, or ask you to change. I'm just a grumpy old bloke at the moment, getting grumpier by the day. (But then I have been locked in one tiny box room 16hrs a day for the last 11 days whilst keeping clear of my covid positive family downstairs and getting them all their meals and drinks. That could be the cause. ) Nick Moyes (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus looks to be implementing proposal 2 - I've done that here casualdejekyll 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The original ordering had "how you see your signature" first to encourage newbies to use that technique so they can easily find their signature without irritating others. This is not social media with an escalating series of look-at-me signatures. Mostly we ignore such signatures from politeness and because a discussion containing many of them can usually safely be skipped. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: "a discussion containing many of them can usually safely be skipped" So like this one? Because me, Levi, and Casualdejekyll all have custom signatures. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

groan No offense to you @Johnuniq, but when the discussion's been open for almost a month with no objections it gets annoying when there's an objection 10 minutes after implementation. My personal opinion on the matter is that signature customization is something that breaks up the dull monotony of a Wikipedia talk page - something that looks straight out of the early aughts in its out of the box form, but with Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions and all the fancy signatures does become slightly more bearable. Also, discounting someone's opinion because of their signature is kind of a textbook judging a book by it's cover scenario? casualdejekyll 01:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Casualdejekyll, your pink signature has insufficient contrast. Please fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What guideline are you basing this off of? I see other same-color signatures all over the place, see for example User:Tamzin, User:Wizzito.. are they wrong too? casualdejekyll 15:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SIGAPP. This very page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I hadn’t found User:Tamzin’s bothersome. I don’t know User:Wizzito. I’m noticing User:PerryPerryD has a much worse, more bothersome, pale green signature. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

adjust youur monitor, its supposted to be a seafoam green/turquoise color. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that it is a bit bothersome. If it were slightly darker (or even had some kind of background) it would be better since the color blends in to the white. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hows this? :) PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's much better. It actually makes the green look much better. DId you actually change the green color at all or is the same? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

i changed the green color cause i accidentilly erased the hex code and forgot it so i just picked a new one. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you kept the green color it would look something like this: PerryPerryD Talk To Me ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Very, very slight difference. The original color is slightly bluer. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to make your signature automatically change colors each post?

In the past, I've seen other users with signatures where the color of their signature would alternate from post to post. Is it possible for this to be done automatic or is this something that has to be done manually? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

An rng to produce six random hexidecimals in the color field preceeded by a hashtag might do it. I'm not sure if the method of changing ~~~~ to a signature would result in the invoke statement being executed, though.

Something like the following might work:

<span color="#{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}}{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}}{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}}{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}}{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}}{{#invoke:random|list|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F|limit=1}};">[[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|talk]] • [[Special:contributions/Mythdon|contribs]])</span>

You should copy that from what's displayed while reading, not from the editing tab if you want to try it out. It might be too long, in which case a module that simply outputs six random hexidecimals would do it. I think I could write one if you like. Happy (Slap me) 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll copy to my sandbox then tweak as I see fit. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Mythdon, if you use something like the above, please ensure that the results always provide enough contrast against the variety of backgrounds onto which it will be applied. See MOS:COLOR for guidance. It may be better to choose half a dozen fully specified colors to rotate among, instead of a completely random color. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon:The example given by HappyMcSlappy would not be permitted. Apart from definitely failing WP:SIG#NT (below) and potentially failing MOS:COLOUR (above), it is 500 characters long and so violates WP:SIGLEN. It also wouldn't work: a <span>...</span> outside a link does not affect the colour of any links inside that span. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines were written before we had modules, but I think the prohibition of templates in signatures extends to the use of modules. Do not use function calls that will be evaluated when the page is rendered in your signature. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: WP:SIG#NT is clear: Transclusions of ... Lua modules, ... in signatures (like those which appear as ... {{#invoke:...}}, ...) are forbidden. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked in the wrong section of the page (which is too long). —Kusma (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general comment, I suggest not making your signature too complicated and instead using your user page to exhibit your creativity. For better or worse, complicated signatures show up in wikitext for everyone using the wikitext editor, and can make it harder for them to navigate through. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mythdon: The others here have raised some good points, including spotting a bug I introduced and finding guidance against transclusion of invocations. So to address those, I would do the following, instead:

[[User:Mythdon|<span style="color:#{{subst:#invoke:random|list|darkblue|black|brown|darkred|darkslategray|indigo|maroon|midnightblue|limit=1}};"Mythdon </span>]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|talk]] • [[Special:contributions/Mythdon|contribs]])

It's deprecated, because you're still substituting the invoke, but it's not forbidden (and will actually work, as the spans are placed properly). It also is limited to dark colors that will display well against the light background. You may notice I left the talk and contribution links out of the styling: this was deliberate, to keep the length down.

Thanks to Redrose64 for spotting the problems all in one go. Happy (Slap me) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• That just seems confusing to me, but I'm in the camp that anything more than a simple color change isn't a good idea, so... casualdejekyll 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• The only thing I can think of is to sacrifice 666 articles at AfD to the dark lord of deletionism in exchange for the ability to dual cast Confusion and Unholy Blight. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• The editor whose signature used to change color was indefinitely blocked many years ago. The only good signature is one that does not confuse/irritate many other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The one that I'm talking about (I believe) exercised RTV (that's why I'm not going to mention their name). Like their signature on one post would be dark red, then on another post be dark blue, dark brown, etc. They could've also been doing this manually, like either going back into their settings and changing the color often, or something like that. I was asking if there was a way to do this automatically (like some sort of tool), but it sounds like there isn't, and I get how what I asked can sound confusing because of the phrasing I used. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  At the risk of WP:BEANS, see User:TreasuryTag/sig (this is not the user obliquely referred to above). This varies both colour and text (although the method for varying colour is obsolete and may no longer work as intended) - visit the page every now and then, making sure that you edit something else in between. You won't see all possible permutations - the selection of the colour and of the text for the contribs link are not random, both are based on {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} (your own when you view the page, but TT's at the time that the sig was used). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} is the total number of edits made by all users, currently 1,257,866,828. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  groan

  I hate how that's a completely viable semi-random number generator. casualdejekyll 20:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• What a horrible idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Custom signature sometimes doesn't work

When inputting a custom signature, if you dont include links to your user page, talk or contributions, it gives the error "your signature must include a link to your userpage, talk, or contributions to this wiki".

Sometimes despite the error message, — '''[[User:Io Katai|<span style="color:#0065C4;">Io</span> <span style="color:#C40000;">Katai</span>]] [[User talk:Io Katai|<span style="color:#0065C4;">Talk</span>]]''' (example) has such links, but it is still not accepted.

Is this a bug or something? Sheep (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not a bug. It is a software requirement; see Wikipedia:Signatures#Syntax guidance. If you are trying to use the above signature as your own, the software will not allow it, because your username is Sheep8144402, not Io Katai. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ig the reason is so that you can't impersonate someone... Sheep (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Math tag in signatures?

I recently changed my signature to include a math tag. I believe it is displayed as an image on most systems. However, the rationale behind disallowing images does not transfer to math tags. So should it be allowed? 0xDeadbeef $\to \infty$ 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's against the spirit of Do not use images, transcluded templates, Lua modules, parser functions, TemplateStyles or external links in your signature. in WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The actual policy is at Wikipedia:Signatures#Images.

• Excessive or large images can cause issues for users on low-performance devices or mobiles.: math tags are not excessive or large. Although symbols such as $\int$ might have an issue because it occupies too much space.
• A new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose, making your signature a target for possible vandalism: does not apply to math tags.
• They make pages more difficult to read and scan: not necessarily for math tags.
• They make it more difficult to copy text from a page: this is partially true. Math tags do copy and it turns into the LaTeX source form.
• They are potentially distracting from the actual content: math tags do not have color, so not really distracting.
• Images do not scale with the text, making the lines with images higher than those without them: math tags do scale with the text.
• They clutter up the "file links" list on the respective image's page every time one signs on a different talk page: no.
• Images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution: not really.

0xDeadbeef 06:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence that I quoted isn't solely about images. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh right, it is a parser function. However, I think this, for math tags specifically, should be discussed.. 0xDeadbeef 23:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You could use the corresponding Unicode characters instead. isaacl (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can do it with

→ ∞

which makes → ∞ - that would be perfectly acceptable, nobody's ever complained about the 🌹 in my sig. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SIGLINK and requiring a link to the user page (even if it doesn't exist)

On the Wikipedia app, if a user has their signature set to just their talk page, there's no way that I'm seeing to get to that users contribs without opening up a browser and bypassing the app. Is this something that would be addressed through a policy change to require a link to the user page, or would this be better addressed as a bug report for the app? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Date and timestamp

At WP:CUSTOMSIG/P one of the things it says is "Always keep the time/date-stamp: these are used by bots to determine when a discussion is eligible to be archived." however I Don't believe there's a way to remove the time/date-stamp without removing it afterwards. Is there a reason this is here or is this simply a relic from when editing the date/time-stamp was possible? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I also think it's a relic from the past. On an unrelated note, there was a user whose timestamp in the signature used to be wikilinked to their user or talkpage. I think it was Lourdes, but I can't be sure. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that it refers to a three-tilde signature. It is possible to use this feature to customise the timestamp, see this post (from nearly nine years ago), but is almost certain to defeat certain bots and scripts that are designed to parse the timestamp as if it is in the standard format. Even omitting the five characters "(UTC)" can screw some of them, including Legobot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I often use five tildes to produce a timestamp, it excludes the username. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone might be signing manually (perhaps if signing a comment after having forgotten originally). isaacl (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is my signature allowed

It has a tongue in cheek citation in it, but I'm not familiar with rules not about having your name and timestamp visible in the signature Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not do this. It would create stray, unexplained references at the bottom of every discussion page that you posted to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I would consider this signature disruptive. Thank you for asking about it, but please change it to something that does not us ref tags. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Feedback needed re procedure leaving sig for a different user than the one performing the edit

A training tool within the framework of Wikipedia:Education creates discussions on Talk pages on behalf of student editors, and publishes a comment on the TP with a sig that is not the userid of the editor running the tool. There is a question as to whether this is compliant with the guideline, in particular, the policy section at § Signature forgery. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: applying signature validation retroactively

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: applying signature validation retroactively. Frostly (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)— Frostly (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Bot incorrectly notified me

I fixed my signature months ago. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 04:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

ZacBowling, unsurprisingly, bots are imperfect. Express your concerns to the bot operator. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, telling a bot to go away (begone) is ineffective. They do not respond to random editor comments. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft message to be sent out to users with invalid signatures

...is at User:HouseBlaster/sandbox. Comments welcome. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I adapted a message that a few of us have been using for three years or so. It has worked well; I have had a number of comments thanking me for the detailed instructions or saying that they worked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The new version suggests that a replacement signature is provided, but that is not the case. If someone wants to go through and do that for all 300+ people on the list, be my guest. Otherwise, I think it be changed to say (in kind language) "either figure out how to fix your signature on your own or ask for help". HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and  Done the above. @Jonesey95: does it look alright to you? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. The message looks great now. I used to provide fixed custom signatures for each editor when I delivered this message. See this talk page for an example. We're not going to do that with this message. How was the list of editor recipients created? I'm curious about the criteria. Also, does the "Learn more" button appear automatically for editors who have an invalid signature, even before they click Save? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The list was created at phab:T356168 (with a massive thank you to Matma Rex!). The Learn more button appears automatically. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I poked around that task and some of its links, but I was unable to find a set of criteria that were easy for me to parse. I did a bit of spot-checking, and I didn't see any errors. I was expecting there to be a lot more than 300 active editors with font or tt tags in their sigs. We'll see. We may need to repeat this process once every month or two for a while; infrequent talk-page posters appear on and disappear from the toolforge signature report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The list comes directly from MediaWiki; if they are not on that list they either have not edited a discussion in the past three months or they do not have an invalid signature. I know some people create a template and use that instead the standard ~~~~; their signatures are not technically "invalid". HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: if there are no further objections, would you be able to send out the message to everyone at User:HouseBlaster/invalid signatures? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I will be away from Wikipedia for the next couple of days. Please ping me again on Sunday or Monday. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: would it be easier if I ask at WT:MMS? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. You might also mention that this message will need to be re-sent (to smaller groups of editors) every month or two for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: it shouldn't need to be resent, because in a month all of those editors with invalid signatures will no longer have invalid signatures. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The change has been deployed :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hooray! I look forward to not seeing font tags in newly posted signatures. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies

At present there are two policies on this page addressing the same thing:

• 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.

There was a RfC in 2021 which closed with the consensus against signatures being required to correspond exactly to usernames and no consensus to require that signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to.

The two conclusions from the RFC were:

• "There is significant opposition to the point where it is clear there is a consensus that signatures are not required to display someone's username in its entirety, without changes."
• "There is therefore no requirement that signatures be easily recognizable to a new user as referring to the username they link to."

It seems only the second guideline (above) adheres to this consensus, so the obvious solution is to remove the first one. However when I tried to do this it was undone by another editor. So I'm bringing the discussion here. Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ThunderPeel2001, why did you reimplement your disputed edit before getting any responses to this question? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Because I'm a naughty Wikipedian :-P Note that actually it wasn't the same edit, I moved the second point to more prominence because I reached out to the editor who undid my edit on their talk page... and they refused to discuss their edit, which led me to think they hadn't even read the whole list before undoing the original change I made. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I note the second conclusion also states I would add that the existing advice on the subject could be worded more strongly regardless of it not being a hard requirement. I don't think we need both of the bullets, but it would be reasonable for someone to support stronger language in the merged version. Anomie⚔ 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal? It seems hard to find wording that is both strongly suggestive to new users but also won't be used as a cudgel by other well-meaning editors. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, but this is not required."? 🤷 Anomie⚔ 11:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that works. Do we keep the second point, too? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd have just one bullet point, with the footnote from the second existing bullet included. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Although just thinking about this with fresh eyes, what's wrong with: "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents, but it is not required."? Do you think it's too soft? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That is too soft. One reason people opposed requiring signatures to match user names is that a significant number of excellent editors started years ago with a user name that no longer appeals and they have signatures that don't draw attention to it. This guideline/policy is mainly for the future and newer editors should be encouraged to have comprehensible signatures. The fact that the policy does not say "a signature must match the user name" is sufficient leeway for cases like yours. You have "TP2001" in the signature and that's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, updated with @Anomie's suggestion. Thanks! WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Government Sites like Texas.Gov are Free-Use

You recently erroneously deleted a whole page I created due to "Copyright Infringement" because I copied the text from the site, which is allowed in Texas. Texas allows free-use of the Government site content like the one I used and you were outside your lane deleting the whole thing. It was an award and I copied the EXACT Qualifications for the awards, the same way we post US Military Awards and qualifications here. We don't edit them or change them we post exactly how DOD/or the Branch lists it.

Please un-delete my page as you're incorrect. TheNathanMuir (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheNathanMuir: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Signatures. You should probably ask the person who deleted that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)