Wikipedia talk:Signatures: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Focus on: non-Latin script: make this a little clearer. this was specifically studied. |
|||
Line 514:
: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. [[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 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 <span style="color:#960303">'''——'''</span><span style="color:blue">'''S'''erial</span> as Serial Number 54129, but some may be confusing like the aformentioned <span style="color:#568203;font-size:11px">YODADICAE👽</span> / 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 <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>", or "it's green-purple-blue with a superscript, it must be <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>". 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). <span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:100%;color:#340096;background-color:transparent;;">•</span> [[User:MelecieDiancie|<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:100%;color:#fff;background-color:#340096;;">| '''melecie''' |</span>]] [[User talk:MelecieDiancie|<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:100%;color:#340096;background-color:transparent;;">'''t'''</span>]] 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
| |||