Help talk:Signatures

After this discussion, this evidently needs to be updated. It still states here that GIF images are to not be used in sigs, but we have clearly started making exceptions as applicable. Rewording necessary? Aqua (T|C) 20:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

sig image - redirect or link?

The page here says that sig images should redirect to the user (talk)page. I'm pretty sure the preferred method now is to make the image link point to the user (talk)page, using the |link= syntax (like in my sig). Does this page need to be updated? —Dr Ishmael 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer redirects as it's easier to get to the file page, but yeah, direct links are popular. Maybe say both methods are fine? The point is it should take someone to the user's area; both methods achieve that. pling 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the userspace, so it's up to the user. They'll be the only ones using it after all.--Relyk ~ talk > 22:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Files are not in userspace, not sure what your point was... —Dr Ishmael 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Files with user image tag?--Relyk ~ talk > 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

personally I hate going places via redirects so I'd prefer a direct link, but both methods are ok (preference to link) Chieftain Alex 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion

No mention of it at all. Is it preferred? Abhorred? Unknown? I've been on wikis with diametrically opposed opinions of this. One just about insisted on it since it made editing talk pages much easier (no ugly blocks of code that newbs can't understand) and another that thought it was sacrilege, tainting the very fabric of the internet to do such a thing. Veldakay -Talk -Stuff 03:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We strongly prefer people substitute signatures, it prevents vandalism and transclusions are looked down upon in general. And now I leave a better response from admins.--Relyk ~ talk > 04:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, we don't have any current processes or practices, but you can take some pointers from GWW here. --JonTheMon 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see a mixed message there, or I'm just not understanding it. It says no to transclusion and then shows the appropriate way it would be acceptable. Since it's not preferred here I won't bother.Veldakay -Talk -Stuff 04:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaving your signature as a bare transclusion ({{User:Me/sig}}) is bad. Using a signature template and substituting it ({{subst:User:me/sig}}) is the right way to go.

More importantly, however, your signature needs to reflect your username. Yours currently displays "Veldakay" but your username is "Mag05003". Either update your signature, or register the username you actually want and we can merge your current one into it. —Dr Ishmael 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How much code is too much code?

Obviously less is better. But would it be worth citing an approximate "don't have a signature longer than X" limitation?

I've spent the last hour or so experimenting, and my current creation is... messy. Khenmu  talk  Edits 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of example, my previous edit was over 50% sig. I've no plans on keeping this one because it feels too long. I'm just not entirely sure where the line should be drawn... Khenmu  talk  Edits 03:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

First, since you're using basic 256-palette colors, you could reduce the size slightly by using 3-character color codes instead of 6-character codes (#000 instead of #000000). Also, background is equivalent to background-color when you're only setting the color.

Regardless, your simpler signature that you used over here is perfectly acceptable. —Dr Ishmael 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Emoji

I recently replaced an image in my signature with an emoji. It looked mostly like my usual yellow star, and I figured it can never hurt replacing inserted images with a mere 2 byte symbol. Is there any downside to such a practice other than the possible lack of the character in an outdated browser or system leaving a placeholder character? Mith🌟Talk 07:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)