Forum:Sig trends

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Sig trends

Note: This topic has been unedited for 368 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Used to be, when custom sigs came out, they were long, colorful, and gay. Now the trend seems to be abbreviations of names with little color (or gayness). What will be the next trend in sigs? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow's sigs will telepathically beam the preceding comment into your brain while stealing your credit card number. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can explain my own sig's transformation as the incremental realization of Microsoft's amazing inability to display basic fonts and CSS markup. My sig always looked neat on OS X even when it was ugly as hell to the rest of you. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned on IRC a few days ago that Todd and I had both abbreviated our sigs severely, which I think spurred some other users to create the shortest sigs possible. It's a welcome change from the multicolored and (gasp) even animated sigs that still plague Uncyc. As for the next trend, who knows? I'd say advertising but Roger the Bum already has a link to Euroipods in his. Maybe it'll go the way of tattoos and people will start inserting incorrectly-translated Japanese characters into their signatures. —rc (t) 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I though I was the one who got credit for that. Back at the VD when sigs were going nuts, I mentioned how mine was nice and simple, easy on the eyes, etc. AND IT WAS SIMPLE FROM DAY 1. I never had one of these insane sigs, ever. Not once. --User:Nintendorulez 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those animated sigs are a nuisance, aren't they? I'm glad those are on the way out. I don't think there's anything wrong with colors, though... I mean, there's a difference between colors that are just "sort of" gay, and colors that are gay!!!, where you have these big rainbow-pastel bars that seem to take up half the screen... but that's just my opinion, I guess! Personally, I'm in favor of completely replacing user names with elaborate character-based emoticons, but that might be a bit "extreme" for some users.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It hurts my eyes. --User:Nintendorulez 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. You're putting spyware on people's computers, aren't you? My sig is not gay.--Jtaylor1 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If a sig is gay, does that mean it only has sex with other sigs? 'Cuz I suspect that my sig had a little fling with an UTF-8 file attachment the other night, and I was wondering if I should be concerned.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's bi instead of gay, it attaches itself to anything and everything? --Carlb 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good question! I would think that even bi sigs would want to have some standards... You may be thinking of sigs that suffer from satyriasis or nymphomania.  c • > • cunwapquc? 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I just realized that I said custom sigs were gay when they "came out". -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 12:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

now that's just weird --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The next trend is obviously going to be really short (few characters) sigs, but displayed in an large font. --SN W | T20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it'll be simplistic sigs, but really long. E-penis length. --∩intendorulez (talk) NS GOTM AWRD EURG TS GMONL √ Ｙ INQSTN CTHLH UBX INV SLOTS PONG CRAP VNDL CUNT FUCK CHAOS BLAH ZKWIN ZIIWIN PR0N AAA STUB RNDM ETC HERE THERE OMGWTFLOLBBQPIEROFLMAOAAAAAAAAA!MORELENGTHYSHIT!!1!1!! 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Randomized sigs. Yeah, you heard me. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps I might adopt that long sig for real... --User:Nintendorulez 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Or one that fucks with the talk page. --User:Nintendorulez 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm going to have to draw the line there. --Algorithm 21:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

'Twas a joke, I wouldn't keep it as a sig for real. (For those wondering, it was {{title-left|{{User:Nintendorulez/sig2}}) --User:Nintendorulez 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I like my sig.. nice and simple but sharp. Heh I love Elvis and the award system he designed, like sigs are an Uncyc meme now. Who knew? Note both me and him try to keep it simple it seems, just a nice like string of seemingly random characters actually representing our rank --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere 00:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

also that reminds me cough cough (last post in that section hint hint) could someone special order KUN me nudge nudge --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, prefer variety. I do not wish to keep any of my sigs forever. --KATIE!! 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I could decide on just one. --User:Keitei/minimalism 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to have more than one sig... but everybody yelled at me... I am considering changing it somewhat, though. If that's alright with you guys.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the long sigs or the short sigs. A name and an image is just right for me, and if I ever change it it'll be ever so slightly. Bloopy 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I like sigs the way they are...they make the noobs go "ooooh aaaaah"...and nobody's looks the same... --HP talk 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the cutsie-type sigs. That, and the brightly-coloured gay ones. They're so fun! Cheer Bear*huggles* 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig Nazi

I may be guilty of having an image in my sig before anyone else on uncyc (I think), and I was guilty of starting the gay sig trend on a dare from Keitei, but the IRC cabal has just decided that images in sigs (including math tags) really should be limited, and the arbitrary limit has been chosen at 20 pixels high. Text should also probably be limited in height somewhat, but that might be more for a per-case decision. Anywho, I've gone through all the /sigs and reduced any images I could find to 20px (or just removed them, in some cases where that wasn't possible). Direct any complaints to me, where they will be cheerfully ignored. --Splaka 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: However, I am wondering if we really should abandon sig inclusions, as we are one of the 10 biggest MediaWiki wikis outside WikiMedia, and are probably putting a bit of a strain on poor Wikia. Be a shame to lose them though. Le sigh. --Splaka 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, the only reason I started actually adding stuff, rather than randomly reading, was so I could have a shiny sig... I'll change it when you make me and not before! -- sannse (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey! no one suggested we remove all sigs, or even images from sigs, but we should seriously consider stopping using includes to retroactively change our sigs ^_^. --Splaka 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I expected better of staff.  :) And a bureaucrat no less. You rebel. ;-) ~ T. (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't even read the text, and it hurts my eyes. As for getting rid of includes, we may be a large wiki but we don't have that many active people at the VD and talk pages and such. It's just the same old handful of users making all the decisions, and so there's not too many sigs to worry about. --User:Nintendorulez 18:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I can't even read the text, and it hurts my eyes." - my job here is done, and my life is complete... -- sannse (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Each time a talk page is loaded, all those sig inclusions have to be parsed. As on most wikis, the view-to-edit ratio can be quite high for us, there used to be as many as 100x as many views as edits on each page back when we had page hit counters. The smallness of the size of the clique of sig-users and decision-makers is irrelevant. --Splaka 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are totally right of course, I simply joined too late for The Time of the Sig. Elsewhere, I'm the first to scream about over-done sigs - which is why it's enjoyably ironic that I've made such a horrendous one here.... <ahem>, I mean "lovely shiny one!!! <3 <3 <3". Meh, whatever's decided... -- sannse (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So that was who removed my <hiero></hiero> tags.... --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 16:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See Stagnant Crap - Maths with hiero --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just upload the images if you must have them in your sig. At their external (to the wiki code) location, they couldn't be thumnailed. As for the math, it was twice the 20px height. --Splaka 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been using 15px as the height of my sig pics. ~His Royal Majesty, Simulacrum Caputosis the Great 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Include Issue

If the issue with signature templates is that they have to be parsed every time a page is read, why don't we implement some sort of semi-caching system for signatures. The signatures could be reparsed only when a page is edited/purged and the server load issues wouldn't matter anymore. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

From wikipedia's signatures page: Transcluded signatures require extra processing and, whenever you do change your signature source, all talk pages you've posted on must be re-cached. If that's right then server resources are only strained when you change your sig. So maybe signature templates should be allowed all right, but changing them often should be discouraged? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So no random sigs, Hino-... I mean, anyone.--<<>> 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps we should have a 100 Ways to Break Mediawiki --Olipro Anchor (Harass) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why templates in sigs are automatically subst-ed by the software (I told you it was a feature). If there were a way to them to be subst-ed, but to not drop an ugly pile of code on the talk page, that would be a great solution. It would mean that changing your sig would not change old signatures, but would future ones. Which I would actually prefer. -- sannse (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could change your signature listing from {{User:Sannse/Sig}} to {{subst:User:Sannse/Sig}} in your preferences. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the software does this automatically... or should. If it didn't to yours I don't know why - possibly there is a difference for people who added it to their prefs before the last upgrade. There is a work around, but subst is what is supposed to happen when you add a template to your sig preference. But subst-ed sigs spew a load of code on the page - which tend to annoy people. I'm talking of a (possibly impossible) middle way; that is a subst as far as the servers are concerned, but doesn't leave messy code in the edit box -- sannse (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lame

You losers turned a trendy fashion topic into a nerdy load of parsing discussion. Lame-o. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's get back to the trying-to-top-each-other-in-absurd-sigs. --∩intendorulez (talk) NS GOTM AWRD EURG TS GMONL √ Ｙ INQSTN CTHLH UBX INV SLOTS PONG CRAP VNDL CUNT FUCK CHAOS BLAH ZKWIN ZIIWIN PR0N AAA STUB RNDM ETC HERE THERE OMGWTFLOLBBQPIEROFLMAOAAAAAAAAA!MORELENGTHYSHIT!!1!1!2! 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right and there's only one proper solution: add a mai tai to my sig. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OWNITUDE

I win, I win! The best, shortest, identifiable sig ever: 04:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So who was that? :p ---Rev. Isra (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Humm... now that could become a trend... 15:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes... ~ _^__{_} 16:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? –H. 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. ~ 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed -S 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. 11:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There comes a point when a sig isn't really a sig any more. (UTC)

Yeah.( )

Hm.

... --18:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuck Sig Trends

My sig is just that, Anidn Menoscwicz's signature. I do not need to follow a trend to make my sig cool, nor do i care if it is cool, i like it the way it is and will change it only if there is something I'D like to add to it. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• As for myself, I like to stay ahead of the trends. It makes me look like I know what I'm doing. For instance, I took all the little awards out before everyone else slowly shrank their sigs. Now, I'm going for this look. ~CaputosistheHorrible13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then. You win.  :) ~ T. (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Woo! I finally won an award on Uncyclopedia! What do I get? ~CaputosistheHorrible13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Waitaminute, you've already got a ninjastar and a cookie...? Hmmm. ~ T. (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're both for F@H, not anything I actually did on Uncyclopedia. ~CaputosistheHorrible14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)