Forum:Signatures

Forums: Index → Watercooler → Signatures

UPDATE

I have proposed a new signature policy, which can be found here. I understand that people will probably find issues with it, so please place any oppositions and supports on the policy's talk page. --Shadowcrest 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Signature discussion

While this may not affect everybody, there's has been a minor debate on initialized signatures or nicknames for signatures. Examples of this would be Randall000-->RJM and Silverdragon706-->FyreNWater. While I personally initially had an initialized Signature (Smorekingxg456-->SK), I was asked by Shadowcrest to change it. Recently, I found a debate on the matter. It would be nice to have other users and admins opinions on this subject. Please discuss your opinions on the matter.Smore Talk 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Initialized sig users should explain who they are on their user and/or talk pages to clear up any misconceptions. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help when you see a sig reading "FyreNWater" and have no clue who it is. --Shadowcrest 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• As long as there is a link to the user page, I have no issue with signatures like that. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Sky. My signature shows me as "5280s" and not my full username, "Miles.oppenheimer"... Maybe you can see why this is preferable. And Sky's point about linking also matches my opinion. {I'm 5280s, and I approve this message.} 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I really don't see why that's preferable. I wouldn't even mind if you dropped the .oppenheimer from your sig and it just read "Miles". That's close enough to your username that new users and others with difficulties remembering pseudonyms that it'd still be immediately recognizable. --Shadowcrest 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

While I think my original was OK, I'm now using this to avoid argument. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if one drags their cursor over the sig, it will reveal what their real user name is. - GalaxiaD (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I never had anyone get confused about my signature until now. I think the rollover is help enough, but that's just me. 'Sides, my sig is kinda awkward now. Silverdragon706/FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 06:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was never "confused" about your sig. I'm neither a new user nor a user with memory problems. I'm just opposed on principle. --Shadowcrest 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I had really hoped somebody would agree with me so I wouldn't have to do this alone ( :[ ), but that unfortunately seems not to be the case. --Salad
  • Users need to use immediately identifyable signatures. The entire point of a signature is not to have it look good, it's to identify you as a user. If you, in the course of beautifying your signature, compromise that goal, then ur doin it rong.
  • Unreadable sigs- Signatures should easily identify the user and not be disruptive to talk pages. If I have to turn my head upside down, install 60+ language packs, learn greek, or pull out a magnifying glass, it causes trouble. If I can't even read your username then why should I be expected to know who you are?
  • Pseudonyms- See point 1. Some of you may argue that "A signature is basically meant for people to know who left a comment somewhere, so the next time they see that signature they recognize it as the same person." Imagine if everyone was assigned a color, and they had to sign with a 50x19 solid block of their color. Would you be able to remember who everyone is? I wouldn't. Using alternate names is like creating a cypher for English that everyone on SmashWiki is expected to know, including new users who don't have a clue what's up. It's ridiculous to ask everyone to be able to understand and coherently use both English and Bilgerd. If you want a different username, then go register it and contribute from there. Now some of you may say "OMGQQ MY CONTIBS," but they're still a link away. Lesser of two evils?
  • Link hovering- This ties in with section 3, but it was getting too disorganized for my liking. While it may not be hard to rollover a sig, it shouldn't be mandatory. I personally find link hovering infuriating. It's a stupid waste of my time, even if it is just a couple of seconds. What if I had a memory problem, and I couldn't remember all of your false names? That's a lot of link hovering just because you wanted to have a nicer signatures.

Whoa. Salad? I suppose you're just trying to prove a point. After reading your argument, I think I actually agree with you. I think there should be a policy or something on the matter of signatures, although I suppose most people don't care about link hovering. I personally don't mind it, as not an extremely large amount of people have initialized signatures or pseudonyms for signatures, but still, there are some people that have random pseudonyms for signatures.Smore Talk 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was to prove a point. One time I logged on to IRC, and my friend Ruricu thought it said "Saladcrest has joined #gwiki", and I thought it was hilarious, and the name stuck as far as Ruricu is concerned. And I'm glad I was able to sway someone :) --Shadowcrest 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, everyone needs a signature. How else are people supposed to tell who you are? Pikabro^TALK 08:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try reading the rest of the forum, or even the first post, before you post on a forum. Try seeing what it's about.O, Mighty Smoreking 14:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)