The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SIG and below. –xeno^talk 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANI#836-character sig. Frankly, there should be a rule regarding the use of templates to tart up signatures, but until that point those which obviously overstep the mark (in this case after repeated warnings) should go through the usual process. Templated signatures are forbidden. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I agree with the nom. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is also User:Launchballer/signature, with a lowercase s. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment Templated signatures aren't strictly forbidden if they are substed rather than linked directly, and Launchballer does subst most of the time (I just fixed one talkpage where he used transclude instead). However, they are discouraged. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if substed, there's still a limit to the length of the sig. 836 characters is way too many. Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I was recently made aware of my own violation of the rule by Equazcion, who offered to, and subsequently did, make an identical version that was 1/4 of the size. On the ANI page I tried the same thing with this user, who has ignored my help. He might not have seen it, but that doesn't excuse his sig. My issue was that I didn't realize how much the SUBST's I had for my colors expanded. He could use the same color technique Equazcion used for me and would be fine, he's just being stubborn.   Nezzadar ☎   02:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've edited Launchballer's signature page and got the code down to 270 characters. I had to remove the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments, but the appearance is maintained. I suggest that if the user can live with this change, and agrees not make the code any larger, this MfD can be ended. Equazcion (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral leaning toward delete. Signature templates aren't forbidden. Transcluding them, as Launchballer does, is. I use a template, User:Hersfold/Sig, to make it easier to preview the appearance of my sig since Preferences doesn't allow that; however in preferences it is substed so that the template is never transcluded. If Launchballer is willing to do something similar, and reduce the template code so that his entire signature is under 255 characters, I don't see an issue with this; but if not, it should be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launchballer's signature is substed. The software doesn't allow you to use transcluded templates in your signature anymore. If you try, it adds subst: automatically. Also, there's no actual rule that says signatures need to be under 255 characters. WP:SIG only states that 255 is the limit in the software. I think 270 is reasonably close to the limit. If we're talking about the practical disruption that long signature codes create as opposed to an adherence to an arbitrary character limit that was probably never actually discussed and has more to do with database memory allocation, I don't see the extra 15 characters causing a significantly elevated disruption in talk page editing. Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were several edits linked in the discussions about this where he was signing with the transcluded template, then coming back in a second edit to subst it. Not only is that a violation of policy, it's maddening for anyone trying to respond to him. I'm willing to concede the character thing, so long as he has no more than 300. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page is currently 270 characters long, with no transcluded templates. Hopefully he won't revert my edit. Equazcion (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You accidentally broke one or two of the features, which I managed to fix. How many lines does it take up now?--Launchballer 06:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not accidentally. I removed your link titles as one way of getting the character count down, without sacrificing on looks. By putting them back in you're now at 346 characters. I think you should just forget the titles. Equazcion (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many lines does it take up (please don't touch the parameters, by the way)--Launchballer 06:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lines aren't important. Lines depend on how wide your browser window is. The character count is what's important, and you're way over it. I'm not sure if those parameters are acceptable in a signature, and I don't see the point either. What exactly do they do for you? Equazcion (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I'd like to use a slightly different coloured signature instead of cyan and red, for example, yellow and blue, I can change them upon my second edit. See below.--Launchballer 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bottom line is, Launchballer, I'm trying to help you out and get your signature to look the way you want it to, but that's the only leeway you're going to get. Your insistence on making a big fuss over your signature is not only going to get this signature page deleted, but may also get you blocked, if similar behavior continues. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not write elaborate and ever-changing signatures. You'll need to accept that if you want to stay here. I recommend you accept my edits (I'll make them again if you want), agree to not add more characters to your signature in the future, and then move on to other things. This is getting ridiculous. PS You're also not allowed to sign with a template. Your signature MUST ALWAYS be subst'd immediately. Equazcion (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – he's still quibbling. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he can't bring himself voluntarily to go under the 255 character limit. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (upper and lower case versions) 359 characters now, which is still way too long. Bencherlite^Talk 09:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User clearly does not accept what has been said about the disruptive signature so action is required to minimize future pointless bickering about unhelpful issues. A delete will clearly establish that a signature is for the benefit of the community rather than for a particular user. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and why do we allow substituted sigs at all? It should be a hard limit. Viridae^Talk 10:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and a WP:TROUT for aggressively spitting in the face of policy, and polite attempts to discuss. Attempts to recreate should be met with escalation. A quick glance my own signature history shows that one can be creative, informative and unique within the 255 guideline, and not use templates. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; if the user were inclined to address concerns and work with the community, I'd have no problem with something unusual for a sig - but the amount of time and effort going into this is ridiculous. On a procedural note, is the signature currently un-subst'd anywhere? Will deleting this break some talk pages? Looks like a few talk pages on "Signature", so those will need to be dealt with (as a user's sig will become a redlink). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've subst'd the last three transclusions of the template. Bencherlite^Talk 12:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per cited guideline (WP:SIG#NT) & all the reasons given there. Would it be possible to enforce that by having the software not accept "(())" when the sig is entered in preferences? Misarxist (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.