Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Miscellaneous/Expand signature length

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal◄ Miscellaneous  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Expand signature length

  • Problem: The signature in Wikipedia is limited to some words. However, some users want a large signature consisting of more words. But they are bound to the short signature. I also faced the problem. And couldn't select my favourite signature due to its short length.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone
  • Proposed solution: Expand the length of signature to double or triple.
  • More comments: All above
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Empire AS (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Signatures are used to indicate authorship of comments, and they seem to work well for this purpose as they are. How would this proposal improve this? Silver hr (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although they work fine, I know. However, they should be a bit longer. Therefore, they must be expanded to a few more words or bytes. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you provide some examples of signatures that would benefit, both in the currently limited form, and the desired form? --DragonHawk (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I can. In the past I wanted this signature (Empire AS Talk!) but due to the its length, I couldn't get it. And I used this signature (Empire AS Talk!) instead as it was shorter. Therefore, I made this proposal to expand its length. It was all that I explained. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forbid any formatting in signatures, those penis prosthetics are just annoying. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Weak oppose This might allow people to abuse said signatures. I am really not positive about this idea. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose People willing to say a lot about themselves have ample sufficiency to do so on their user page. Worth remembering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media. Plus long words/signatures are not beginner-friendly. It took me ages to discover how I could interact with some who had special signatures. --Braveheidi (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose No good reason was given for this. Silver hr (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose Not against it in theory but I've never seen any examples where a signature is too long for the current system // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 03:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose per MarioSuperstar77, Braveheidi, and.....Lollipoplollipoplollipop Firestar464 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose --Ján Kepler (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose! This may end up allowing stories or short bios included in a signature instead of it to serve as just a sign. Em-mustapha User | talk 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong opposeputnik 18:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Cabayi (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose totally unnecessary. One can be distinctive with fewer characters. Long signatures are also sometimes disruptive to the readability of discussions.Possibly (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Libcub (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Braveheidi — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Users who have extra stuff to say or show off can just put it on their userpages. Some1 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose — --Noel baran (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose --Kusurija (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Long signature code just clutters page's source code and is usually used by people who like to put an excessive amount of colours, links and other unnecessary stuff in their signature. So no, hard no on this proposal. Meiræ 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose is just a sign. Francois-Pier (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Philiptdotcom (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose --WTM (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose — TARDIS Builder (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose PorkchopGMX (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose en: totally exaggerated / de: völlig übertrieben --Dirk123456 (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I'd say: disallow useless bling in signatures, especially any <span>-junk, that's are just an eyesore.Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Braveheidi et al. —2d37 (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support <span> tags take many symbols. Golmore (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Signatures are supposed to be short and simple. Nachtbold (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose--David1010 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]