Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-4984687-20150326040341/@comment-1251315-20150401092135

Madman97 wrote: Really, I don't see a problem with making one's signature extravagant. Are we trying to find a problem in everything the user does? It's a signature. Who cares if it's blue, green, or polka-dot? That being said, I still think that users should sign their legible English (Or at least letters from our alphabet) and identifiable signature when leaving messages in case that was up in the air as well. As such, I don't see it as much of a problem. Actually, last year it was a major problem. And obviously, people thinking that this isn't much of a problem don't fully understand what signatures are for: they are for identifying the user on talkpages, if the name is not displaying in the text without hovering over the link, the point of the signature is gone. No other wiki allows you to have extravagent and unneeded signatures, it's meant to be simple and identify you on talkpages.

I'll link to Wikipedia this time regarding signature customisation: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures