MarioWiki talk:No-signature policy

It's unfortunate that this policy is needed because users can't do their coding right! * and # lists are screwed up because tags are left unclosed or something like ... or. I'm not arguing it but I think the lack of implementing some other policies led to this one... 22:49, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Indeed, I agree with you. In fact, I would love to see this policy vanish from the wiki, as I would love to use my signature when signing comments and such, it is much easier. Other users have come up with lame excuses such as the signatures slowing down the website, but it is only putting a certain amount of bytes on the page. I completely agree with you, Wayoshi, and I think other policies should be made/enforced so that users with good signatures and do their coding correct aren't punished for other users; mistakes. 23:02, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I remember signatures becoming a problem on the Proposals page while ago, but does that mean this rule bans signatures from the entire wiki, talk pages and all?
 * No, this polixy only applies to pages that say that they enforce this policy. Something along the lines of "This page observes the No-Signature Policy'". If it doesn't mention the policy in an enforcing manner, then using signatures is fine. 14:24, 26 December 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Should we mention that on the policy page, then?
 * Actually, there is one rule that applies to the whole wiki in general: Rule 8, which states that there must be a link to either the user's page or talk page. Besides that, the other rules of the policy can only be in effect when it is mentioned that the policy is in effect. 11:32, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Simple question: WHY?

how come there even IS a no-sig policy? i hate that... how do you even NOT put your name there? CatJedi's been here......a comment
 * The primary reason is because of the first point: "The signature codes that are not allowed are (~) and . Some of these signatures reset the number count on voting pages. While not all signatures reset number counts, it wouldn't be fair to allow some personalized signatures while banning others, so none of them are to be used." To sign your comments on pages that implement this policy, you can use  or Name . All of this is explained on the page accompanying this one.
 * Also, I would like to note that the no-signature policy is also to save loading time (or something like that) because signatures DO take up some work for the website. This is why signatures are not allowed in the comments of FA nominations and proposals (the other reason, which people have stated that it would "complicate" the rule, I think is a very weak argument). 20:46, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Proposals example
This policy only applies to pages that say that they enforce the No-Signature Policy (for instance, Proposals). That should be changed as the proposals page no longer follows the No-Signature Policy. 15:59, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

Rethinking the no-signature policy
I always figured that the policy was built on really shaky premises (we should force fall-back on badly coded signatures that reset votes rather than bar everyone from using them) but I think there's also utility on allowing users to use their signatures even for voting. It's convenient to type, sure, but allowing signatures also helps plop a time stamp on when the votes are casted. Yeah, the votes without no-sig policy look cleaner, but it's probably useful if votes had timestamps on them too. Just a thought. 21:45, March 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Maybe you should first go about proposing a ban on the signatures that reset voting numbers. 22:25, March 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * If we wanted a time thing, we could always do, which appears as this: 22:57, March 20, 2019 (EDT). This is better in that it there is no worry about signature resetting the vote, but it is  in length as opposed to ~ .  22:57, March 20, 2019 (EDT)