Problem: For people who would like to have some uniqueness in their signatures, the default signature has to be re-configured over and over again every time we entered a new Wiki project. Besides, for people with non-latin usernames (like me), they might want to display a more recognizable, possibly Romanized signature on other Wiki Projects, and a more complicated username in their home wiki.
Who would benefit: Cross-wiki users; people having non-latin characters in their user names, and people reading their comments
Proposed solution: A global signature (maybe the one used in meta.wiki)
More comments: I also hope that the default signature can be bolded, because the current plain link just make it merge into the discussions, and indistinguishable from other blue links.
Translating scripts would probably make it easier for people unfamiliar with some scripts to recognize editors. But this might also make names unrecognizable across wikis; many people have natural names in multiple languages which are not obviously related to one another. If this gets implemented, could we please have a Languages section in the sidebar of user pages so that it's obvious what other names a user uses? HLHJ (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could cause issues if global is the only option. I for example have a different sig here than on en.wiki (the one here specifically targets to en.wiki user page, where if the en one was used here it would target my meta user page). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd prefer we got rid of customised signatures completely due to the hassle they cause. For example, in the recent migration from Tidy to RemexHtml, illegally formatted signatures containing improperly terminated font tags caused tens of thousands of talk pages to turn into multicoloured rainbows, with font colour tags colouring the text on the rest of the page until the next font colour tag came along and changed it again. The font tag has actually been deprecated for 20 years (really!) but it's used on millions of talk pages due to custom signatures. The headaches caused by custom signatures don't seem worth the benefits to me, so I'm not exactly in favour of exacerbating the problem by encouraging their globalisation. --Deskana (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: Yes, I did, and that's actually a good example of the problem! An upside down signature like I used to use is a nightmare for accessibility since a screenreader wouldn't be able to make any sense of it. Nice callout. ;-) --Deskana (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Customized signatures aren't welcome in every project. Enforcing them against local customs can lead to unnecessary disputes. --Zinnmann (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contra wie Deskana. Klickibunti-Egovergrößerungsmüll, den einige hier haben, sollte dann selbstverständlich untersagt werden. per Deskana. Clicky-Dicky-Ego-Enhancing-Junk that some have as signatures should be strictly forbidden in that case. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The issues of bad syntax can be worked out (T178879 and related), so I'm not real sympathetic to Deskana's opposition. The bigger problem with custom signatures is the general inaccessibility as noted by others here. --Izno (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could cause issues if global is the only option. I for example have a different sig here than on en.wiki (the one here specifically targets to en.wiki user page, where if the en one was used here it would target my meta user page). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Galobtter (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It may not be polite to use a fancy signature in other wiki projects due to difference in culture.--Temp3600 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Strong support Waddie96 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
