Forum:Signature restrictions

Recently, many users are creating custom signature and templates. While most of these suit the theme of the wiki, I've noticed that a few signatures are oversized and are adding clutter to the page or its wikicode.

Several users have MW2 Callsign-inspired userboxes as their signature. My problem with this is that the image is at least 3 lines large -- often being larger than the actual edit. Some users (I'm thinking of User:EightOhEight at the moment) whose signature adds multiple lines of code, which at times I've found makes it difficult to find what I want to edit.

Should there be a policy or guideline on how big signatures should be? --Scottie theNerd 03:10, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about the callsigns, those do not belong. As for myself, I've changed that since. Some peoples, such as Poketape, MdDy x GMON3Y and Dark Anomaly have animated emblems that won't move if they're resized. If you don't edit in source mode, then it shouldn't be a problem, though. EightOhEight

There was a small discussion a while ago regarding how large images in a signatures should be. In my opinion, any signature image over 30px is far too large. If the picture gets to the point where it is interfering with the lines of text, then it obviously is too big. 13:36, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pwoah, that's identical to what I'm trying to say. 30px is used as the maximum for some other wikis I used to frequent (and in fact, some go for even smaller). 100px is ridiculous. This isn't a BBcode forum; it's a wiki. We don't need large-sized icons cluttering pages. --Scottie theNerd 14:21, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would one like this be ok? -- USMC-E3.png  Griever0311 United States Marine Corps.png 14:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just about right. --Scottie theNerd 10:47, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A standard needs to be set. -- Poketape Talk 03:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a place where you could enter your signature for approval. Doc.  Richtofen  11:59, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Signatures don't need approval. They just need to conform to size limitations. Anything under 30px is small enough to be unobtrusive to wiki pages. --Scottie theNerd 12:34, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

True. Doc.  Richtofen  19:10, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't know much about comupters, so how big is 30 px? Would one like my USC icon fit? 01:43, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Trojan icon of yours is 35 pixels wide, for reference. 07:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * So should I get a new one? 00:17, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends on what becomes of this discussion. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Leemi guess, mine is to big? T C   E   B 14:15, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your signature was the one I was thinking of in particular. --Scottie theNerd 16:10, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then i agree with having to get ur Sig aproved by a 'crat. (for he record mine was aproved by a 'crat seeing as he made it for me) GenCain.jpg C E B 23:57, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was approved before this discussion. The whole point is to limit the size of signatures so that they wouldn't need bureaucrat approval. Your signature takes up nearly four lines of text on the screen. --Scottie theNerd 04:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

The only reason my sig is so big is all the links, FYI T C E B 11:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your userbox's vertical size. --Scottie theNerd 13:35, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Cain, I thought your old signature was better. Partially because it was less obtrusive. By the way, is mine acceptable? If it isn't could I just put the picture down to 30px? Doc.  Richtofen  19:51, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours is 40x. A 30px image would look like this: Richtofen.jpg. As you can see, it stays in-line fairly well and won't force the page to insert blank spaces. I think most of us use images in the 35px-40px range, and the gist is that as long as you're not using something ridiculously oversized (50px or more), it's probably fine with most users. --Scottie theNerd 20:40, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make mine smaller, it is just an image, T C   E   B 23:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * In your signature settings or template, you will need to change the size of the image. At the moment, your wikicode reads 175px. Just change the value to 30px. However, it'll end up looking like this: GenCain.jpg. --Scottie theNerd 05:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree about limiting the sizes of images. However, I don't think a need for a signature policy is required. I feel signatures like Doc.Richtofen's, Poketape's and mine are perfect. Also, the default signature is fine. Regarding Cain's sig, I do think your sig is a bit out of place - the image is too big. It's not a huge problem, and if you really like your sig as it is I don't mind, but the pic is quite large. 13:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we need somewhere where signature guidelines can be looked up and referenced. We can't consistently point at someone's sig and say "that's fine, but that's too big". --Scottie theNerd 16:04, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is my signature too big?  Lt. Dunn  Talk  17:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your signature is 64px, which is double the proposed restriction. --Scottie theNerd 17:53, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think mine or Docs is too big. 17:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a significant problem with your image sizes though. Look at the line spacing between your comment and mine. Compare that to, say, the comments between Callofduty4 and myself. Compared to non-image in-line signatures, your signature images can take over three times the space on a talk page. If everyone had a 40px image and posted on a talk page, it would look way too cluttered and make discussion more difficult than it needs to be. If you look at the top of this section, you see a few blocks of text -- nothing too eyecatching. Scroll down and you see big grey rectangles and rotating missiles. It's a basic in website design not to have too many of these, and users with these types of signatures make the wiki less accessible. --Scottie theNerd 19:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is this too big? I think it's 35px.  Ukimies  Talk  18:10, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 40px. You can see it in the source code. --Scottie theNerd 19:08, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think mine's OK, but to be fair I just pinched some existing code and substituted the new text and image. 19:21, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is mine to big?  Cpt. Z   21:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see it yourself in the source code. If you didn't specify a size in your signature, click on the image and it will tell you how big it is. For reference, the proposed size limitation is 30px, which is this size: [[Image:Balkenkreuz.jpg|30px]]. Your image is 64px. --Scottie theNerd 09:38, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Do I have to find a whole different image then? This one can't get smaller without stopping the spinning.  Lt. Dunn  Talk  22:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Do the Users with animated pics have to change theres, if they do, the picture stops moving.   Sgt.Ex  Ask the Expert, He'll answer!  22:17, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Signatures are OK, making a change unnecessary. BTW, is mine ok?  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 22:23, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? I outlined above that image signatures make the pages cluttered and difficult to navigate. --Scottie theNerd 04:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

A height of 20 pixels is the wikia-wide guideline for images in signatures. All lines have a height of 20 pixels, and anything taller than that makes the line layout go irregular. I'm not saying we should do that, but if you want a solid guideline, making all images in sigs have a size no larger than x20px is a good one. Remember to outlaw line breaks and template systems in signatures as well. -- Tigernose    Chat   •  Edits   23:46, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. It's solid reasoning and sounds good to me. However, I'd also like to invite other editors to have a say, especially since so many use large signatures. --Scottie theNerd 04:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Can the signature picture be 30-45 pixels for the limit? 22:48, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Is mine to big?--  Cpl. CheezyDerek  Talk 23:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Cheezy, yours is fine.  Lt. Dunn  Talk  01:03, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so what's the pixel limit fore the pictures? 22:48, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to make it 30pix.  Lt. Dunn  Talk  01:19, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

So mine would look like this:   Sgt.Ex  Ask the Expert, He'll answer!  01:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Is my new one too big?  Lt. Dunn  Talk   02:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can check it yourself, and it's 35px. --Scottie theNerd 13:17, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got it brought down to 30px.  Lt. Dunn  Talk   21:13, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I got mine downsized to 30px too. Here it is. Doc.  Richtofen  19:24, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure mine is a little too big. How do I resize it? DjuNgleB http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100402220853/callofduty/images/5/52/Starcraft.gif 19:41, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can resize moving Signatures, 808 would be a better person to ask. Doc.  Richtofen  19:44, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

If it's too much trouble, I won't mind removing the pic. Perhaps it would be better I suppose. DjuNgleB http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100402220853/callofduty/images/5/52/Starcraft.gif 19:45, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Send Eight a message about it. If it won't work, tell him if there's anything else you want. Doc.  Richtofen  19:48, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I hope my new sig is a good size. It doesn't tell in source mode. 19:49, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is too big. Doc.  Richtofen  19:50, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Well, I'm sure I can get it downsized. 19:52, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you can. It's an image, not like mine. Doc.  Richtofen  19:54, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, DJB bogarted my banhammer .gif :p On topic, I think a limit of 20-30px is an excellent idea. --  Griever0311   20:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Griever, I saw it and thought it was the coolest one in selection. Like I said before, I can remove it, it's no problem. DjuNgleB http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100402220853/callofduty/images/5/52/Starcraft.gif 20:03, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see how this one looks. Also, the reason it's such a badass image is because *I* uploaded it. -- <font style="background:gold"> Griever0311  22:21, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Shall we put the downsize image to 30px on the site notice? Doc.  Richtofen  11:54, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Signature Size
Keeping this short and simple. Maximum image size of 30px. Support or Oppose? --Scottie theNerd 12:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support
Support - Plenty of room. Dunn's is 30px, I made it for him (so is mine, for the record) - 12:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per ScotlandTheBest. 12:16, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - My current sig fits this nicely. 12:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie; 30px is plenty to work with, and keeps long discussions flowing more smoothly, as well as being more aesthetically pleasing in general. -- <font style="background:gold"> Griever0311   <-- 20px

Support - Per Scottie, 30px is more than enough. Doc.  Richtofen  14:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Do you support Scottie? Doc.  Richtofen  14:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I abstain from the vote. --Scottie theNerd 10:07, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 30px is more than enough. 14:56, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. <font size="4" color="white">Gen. Ex <font size="1" color="lightgrey"> Ask the Expert! undefined  04:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I support due to the fact that large signatures displace a lot of text on discussion pages these days. 21:32, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I believe 30px is a good size not to large for the format but not too small to see but I would support up to 35px in size. Scorpion979 03:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 30px is reasonable for images in sigs. Having this rule in place will be very helpful if there's ever a situation where a user has a sig image that takes up too much space. All we would need to do is point them to this rule instead of having to explain to a user exactly what a "too big" sig image is. Darkman 4 09:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support -I think each user should have an emblem/perk sign next to their name and that is it... E.G. mine <font style="background:white"> Gman 111  18:48, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose - It restricts my signature from moving. <font style="background:green"> Cpt. Z   22:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Mine can't move if below 36 pixels. Poketape Talk 01:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 45px is a fine size to me, but not 30. It's just a waste. 4MB1T10N 03:59, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that 30px is a bit too small. I think that the size maximum should be moved to 45px. 00:55, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Other
Neutral - 20px if you're wanting any real change. Anything above 20px still dents the layout, although I wouldn't mind a 30px rule and a 20px guideline. -- <font face="Tahoma">Tigernose    <font face="Aharoni">Chat   •  <font face="Aharoni">Edits   00:31, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Tigernose. Slowrider7 00:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for making it 15px even. However, the majority of users have images in excess of 30px, so I considered that many users would oppose the notion in the basis that they wouldn't want to change their signature, especially since many of the stock rank images are already at 30px. --Scottie theNerd 03:11, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Question - If this passes when will it come into place? <font style="background:gold"> Cpt. Z   19:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Answer - Yes. Doc.  Richtofen  20:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

When? <font style="background:gold"> Cpt. Z   20:30, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Answer - When the decision is final. Doc.  Richtofen  18:37, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral-I think we should make it a little bigger than 30, because at 30 a lot of images get lost. how about 40? --T C   E   B 23:04, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * We might as well not have a limit in that case. 30px is already in excess of Wikia guidelines. Any larger and it'll be unmanageable. Unless you have the Mona Lisa as your signature, 30px is enough for signature purposes. --Scottie theNerd 04:07, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - So this is my sig at the standard size for pics: -- <font size="4" color="white">Gen. Ex <font size="1" color="lightgrey"> Ask the Expert! undefined  04:18, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The 30px maximum is connected with the moving signature images; one can't pass without the other. 01:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It depends, although Poketapes is over 30px, it's not that big at all. On the other hand, Gen Cains needs to be reduced or have no titles as signatures. 19:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I think it could be at least 40px, but 30 is a good idea. Mine's 120px, but it's not vertical. I don't know how high it is. <font style="background:white"> Talk |  Contribs  19:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- What size is this Sig? <font style="background:black"> Squelliot Talk   Edits   22:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Answer- 45px, I will bring it down to 30px if you want. --

Comment The image on this sig is 150px, but it aint that big <font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 23:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Moving signature images
Moving signatures are more disruptive to the page than large images. This is a wiki, not a forum. Pages need to be clean and accessible without clutter in both wikicode and visually on the page. We should be making pages look neat rather than looking like an 8-year-old's first web page. Support or Oppose? --Scottie theNerd 12:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I agree, we need this wikia to look good, but does it matter what talk pages look like? 12:18, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I also agree, and am partial to Lt. Dunn. DjuNgleB http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100402220853/callofduty/images/5/52/Starcraft.gif 13:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Though I support the smaller signatures, I'm a little bit opposed to this one; is it possible to shrink gifs so that they're less obtrusive, and still have them animate? -- <font style="background:gold"> Griever0311   14:49, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Clutter. Having a hundred moving images on a page is a prime example of a poorly designed webpage. It makes it more difficult to locate pieces of information, which is the primary reason why talk pages exist. The vast amount of images on a single page can be overwhelming and deter editors from contributing. Talk pages should be focused on discussing whatever matters it pertains to (e.g. article improvements, user issues), not spamming someone's page with the same image with every edit. I should turn the question around: why should we have moving images? --Scottie theNerd 14:13, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Most users don't use moving images, and it's unlikely that each of those users will unleash a torrent of comments on the same page, so if they could be downscaled to the same size as ours, I don't think it would be too bad. Having a hundred moving images *can* be the sign of a poorly designed webpage, or it can just be a bunch of users with animated signatures having a discussion. -- <font style="background:gold"> Griever0311   14:49, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * They can have a discussion without using animated signatures. There's no need for them and, honestly, I think editors are expending far more time and effort into making, improving and changing signatures than actually contributing to the wiki; though that's just my short-sighted opinion. --Scottie theNerd 10:05, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There...I removed mine. Ta-Dah! DjuNgleB 14:52, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I guess my signature confuses people. My username is not Lt. Dunn. It is Cpl. Dunn. I like the rank of Lt. better though, so that's what all my sigs say. 19:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Animated images cause talk pages and whatnot even longer to load, and, with a lot of text on some talk pages already, that can be a long time for some users who do not have the fastest internet in the world. In addition, it would seem most animated images are at least double the 30x30 pixel maximum. I've got fast internet, fortunately, but even still, the out of line text with the add-on of slower load times makes it seem the cons outweigh the pros. 22:59, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I like my signature the way it is: moving. Poketape Talk 03:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. <font style="background:black"> Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 00:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Poketape. <font style="background:gold"> Cpt. Z   20:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Poketape. <font style="background:black"> Sactage  Talk  13:56, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I might come across as abrupt here, but the way you like your signature is a bit of a senseless reason to oppose. 14:34, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I like my signiture and it is not that disruptive -- General N'thro Notadee  Talk Blogs 14:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

'''Oppose- 'I think it makes it easier to find someone quickly and it looks cool'. '''

Oppose - Animated .gifs are harmless in sigs. Things like cutting down on the size of images in sigs is fine with me because the very real possibly of a user having a sig that's too large, but this is going a bit overboard. Darkman 4 07:19, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - we need to maintain our individuality, but our professionalism.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 07:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I hardly consider it "individuality" when there are three people with the same spinning nuke emblem. Also, if the 30px max restriction passes, then most if not all of these animated signatures would have to go anyway. 13:25, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well,thats just them three. One of the reasons i changed mine was for individuality. <font style="background:white"> Gman 111  11:08, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Signature Test
<font style="background:black"> Squelliot  Talk   Edits

Sig Templates
What if you make a signature into a Template, does that cut back on coding? <font size="3" color="darkred">CodExpert <font size="1" color="blue">Ask the Expert! He'll answer! 01:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

It means there's no junk code in article, and it updates itself when you change it. 14:35, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Moving Image Sizes
I have an idea, how about those who have moving images get the image to the smallest possible size that it will still move at. Doc.  Richtofen  19:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Poketape Talk 20:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

So Poketape's sig would look like this: Poketape  Talk --

Oh it didn't move... it stops at 36px,.--

Mines too big? 6:03, April 23, 2010 (UTC+7)

Told ya. Look how less cool it looks when stopped. Poketape Talk 03:29, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to accept "looking cool" as a reason to keep certain image signatures, we might as well scrap this proposal. Function and practicality should hold priority over appearance and aesthetics, but if this many people want to keep their animated signatures instead of following Wikia guidelines, then there's little point in continuing this discussion. It's a choice we have to make -- either we make things more streamlined, or we keep our "cool" and let pages clutter up. --Scottie theNerd 03:37, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a fan of gifs in signatures. They clutter up pages, and once it took me more than a minute to load a talk page because of all the animated nuke symbols. I'd much rather have it so they weren't there. Having images is fine by me, but granted they are at a good size. The default signature is quite alright. It's simple and doesn't clutter up pages. I might start using the default signature myself. 23:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the default is then it is more difficult to see who says what. If you have a custom sig then you will be easier to find. P.S. I am working on a new sig idea for myself --GenCain.jpg C   E   B 12:13, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Default signatures have never been a problem. While custom signatures do make individual comments more recognisable, the default signature certainly does not make it "difficult" to see comment authors. --Scottie theNerd 15:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Is mine ok?
Talk 15:28, April 25, 2010 (UTC)