Solution
The Lemmy server appears to have a database limit of 255 characters [2]; however, individual instances appear to put their own limits on username length though the frontend [3] and/or the API [4.1][4.2].
Original Post
If you know, please also provide relevant documentation.
UPDATE (2025-02-02T06:06Z): I did some brute-force testing, and, at least for sh.itjust.works, it seems that the maximum username length is 50, and the maximum password length is 60 [1].
References
- “Sign Up”. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Accessed: 2025-02-02T08:49Z. https://sh.itjust.works/signup.
- When creating an account on sh.itjust.works, the sign-up form will throw this error if the provided password is greater than 60 characters in length.
- @[email protected] To: [“[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?”. “Kalcifer” @[email protected]. “Lemmy Support” [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.]. Published: 2025-02-02T05:57:26Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:44Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936/16442382.
- They pointed to code on GitHub for the Lemmy server which outlines the length of the username data in the SQL database.
- “[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?”. “Kalcifer” @[email protected]. “Lemmy Support” [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:46Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.
- §“Original Post”. ¶2.
[…] I did some brute-force testing, and, at least for sh.itjust.works, it seems that the maximum username length is 50 […]
- The maximum username length for sh.itjust.works was found to be 50 characters by brute-force testing the length limit.
- §“Original Post”. ¶2.
- “Andrew” @[email protected] To [“[SOLVED] What is the maximum username length for a Lemmy account?”. “Kalcifer” @[email protected]. “Lemmy Support” [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2025-02-03T00:54:51Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936.] Published: 2025-02-02T19:57:49Z. Accessed: 2025-02-03T00:59Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/32085936/16453656.
-
curl -L http://lemmy.world/api/v3/site | jq -r .site_view.local_site.actor_name_max_length(26)- The maximum username length for Lemmy.world was found to be 26 characters via an API request.
-
curl -L http://sh.itjust.works/api/v3/site | jq -r .site_view.local_site.actor_name_max_length(50)- The maximum username length for sh.itjust.works was found to be 50 characters via an API request.
-
I think the way you were using references started to wind me up. It gave some academic veneer to a format that usually more conversational. They’re just links to what some people reckon, but dressed up with ‘accessed’ and ‘published’ in a footnote format that in other other contexts would suggest a level of credibility that they don’t have. Either something is solved or it isn’t, but it shouldn’t be marked ‘solved’ with links to answers of questionable accuracy.
This is a fair point, I think. Do you propose an alternative word? At what point would you say that it is justified to use “solved”? I used “solved” because, for my purposes, the question is answered (I know now that SJW has a max username length of 50, which is the only information that I personally needed).
I don’t know. I’m still hung up about this ‘references’ thing, I think. It reads like you intend for your post to be an objective resource for others to use, but then fall back to it being good enough for your subjective purpose when questioned about it.
It feels like wanting to have your cake and eat it - a authoritative-looking post that isn’t authoritative.
What do you mean by this exactly? Is it synonymous with your usage of “objective resource”?
First, what do you exactly mean by “objective resource”? Second, what makes you think that it’s intended to be an “objective resource”? Are you saying that my use of citations gives you that impression?
This may be how you are interpreting it, but I assure you that isn’t how I am using it. I personally try to make that clear through the language that I pair with it. For example my usage of the word “appears” in the post suggests, imo, that something is likely, but not necessarily factual given the current body of evidence (as provided by sources), but it carries potential of being incorrect. I recognize that my understanding of things may be flawed, so I leave a sort of “trail of breadcrumbs” to where I found information for others (like yourself) to verify and/or dispute.
I would argue that this is argument is moot given that this community, or at the very least this post, isn’t exactly the place for casual conversation, as it is a support community.