RuneScape talk:Signatures

Can you please make me a sig?
I want a brown box with a green outline, in the middle my name (knight4650) in green writing, a link to my talk page, and on the left sidde a picture of an earth rune, and on the right side a picture of a nature rune. thanks!

(btw im not sure if this was the right page for me to request a signatrure, if it isnt please put a link on my talk page. tvm.)

Not working
Hello, people. I just tried to follow the signature template procedure. However, I always get the following message:

You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason: You do not have permission to create new pages.

Can somebody please help me out with this.

PS: Of course, Im logged in when doing this-- BURNTICEJ http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/4443/silverv.jpg 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I cant explain it. It just started working today. If you read and fixed it, thank you-- BURNTICEJ http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/4443/silverv.jpg 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the new template...
Couldn't think of any more appropriate template than Under Construction; This policy is not in effect...yet. We should discuss this first and make edits as appopriate, removing the UC tag when we're done. The stuff I've put in in the restrictions bit is just what I thought of off the top of my head. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vimes it's ok to have an image as long as its SUPER SMALL. Anyways thats how I feel. --◙▲╛Whiplash ◙▲╛ 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...yeah ok...slight change to the policy to reflect that. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideas
Ok, this bit is just ideas that are being put down - just indent one level further than the suggestion and put agree or disagree, and a reason if appropriate. Feel free to add to this list. I think this would be the most efficient way to deal with the ideas - any which require discussion can be discussed individually with ease...of course, if you disagree, do say so. :) JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Images - only allowed to use sysop crown as an image if a user is a sysop?
 * Aggree, it signifies what (and who) you are, but only admins should be able to claim (and use) it. sysopcrown.PNG Megalodon99   ( Talk ) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Backgrounds and borders - I suggest banning them completely...
 * Disagree They dont take up too much space as long as you only have them on say one link sysopcrown.PNG Megalodon99   ( Talk ) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Add a link to This Page

Using a Template
What if there was a template for example Template:Signatures and each user created a subpage so for me Template:Signatures/The Voices. You could save your signature there and every time you wanted to use your signature you just used:

Template:Signatures/Your Username

One advantage of this is that if you change your template all your signatures will automatically change. Your template could have 1 variable were you insert ~ to add your username and a timestamp.

--The Voices 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Idea! I love it. It would get rid of most restrictions on length!. You may just say  (five tildes leaves only a timestamp . It may even be possible to use the template when setting your preferences.  Megalodon99    ( Talk ) 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It works!!!!! 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Just set your preferences to then put a nice complicated sig on the Template:Signatures under your user subsection.  Megalodon99   ( Talk ) 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Signatures
Ok, there's 2 signatures there at the bottom of the list that aren't even signatures, should we fix it, or leave it be for the user?
 * I fixed Codenametiger's sig, though the other one I might jsut remove as it's all messed up. I'll try to fix it first.-- Richard ( Talk  -  Contribs ) 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

???
Why did this happen? Now the page does not tell you how to make sigs. I was very proud of that page... 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a theory, but maybe one of those "experienced" siggers wasn't getting enough requests for new sigs and so changed it so new users could not recieve instructions on creating their very own sig all by themselfs. As a result, all new users who wanted a sig would have to go to them to request a one solving their problem. Tylerbeg 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RuneScape:Customizing your signature.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

fixed list numbering
For some reason PK 01 ER's signature would make the list numbering restart so i just bumped him to the end of the list to fix it.  oblivion  01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * can you do it again, its getting fragmented, and i dont know how to fix it  Wooly hat.PNG]] Corhen talk[[File:Green party hat.PNG 08:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NVM, i spent close to 2 hours tracking down the names, then changing it so it works properly, it seems that it is unable to count past 124, so i threw a name the restarts the count into the begining of the second section, is someone knows what causes this, that can add it and move the name down below  Wooly hat.PNG]] Corhen talk[[File:Green party hat.PNG 09:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving my sig
Any suggestions for improving my sig: Range Piggietalk

Range Piggietalk

Range Piggietalk 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Help
Every time I sign, my signature's white party hat's background turns black, like this:
 * 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it something wrong with just my computer, or wikia? 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? That's weird, it only turns black when I use 14px. {White party hat.PNG} 00:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (see Image talk:White party hat.PNG). 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Time of signing?
How do you make something say the time of when something was written, like 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC), but something I can use in my sig, or can i just chuck the whole code in preferences? Tobylane 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When you type ~ it automatically should produce your sig and date. You can also do for just your sig and  for just the time and date. Cheers, Kandarincrest.gif Chicken7  >talk>RfA 13:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more a date in a custom sig.

whats up
i made Template:Signatures/Corhen, and made my preferences say in my sig catagory, but i end up with

 Corhen talk

, which is the entirety of the code, when i sign, is there a way to make is so it just says

?? so that i dont have a massive amount of junk? 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, i needed to relpace
 * with
 * Signatures/Corhen 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Signatures/Corhen 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

little problem here
i have re-done my signature from the one with the black lognsword and green phat, and i have changed the "template" (Template:Signatures/Craiga2124) but the system has not changed my signature yet. When will this happen, as i have been waiting for 3 weeks for it to change now. Any advice please??

04:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NVM I fixed it!

Identity
I have an unusual situation here. My name on Wikia is Aiddat because it's my Star Wars nickname. However, in RuneScape I go by Ali Irontoad. By someone copying me or some bizarre coincidence I saw a character on Tutorial Island named "Aiddat" who wasn't me. I would rather not make another account for this wiki; I'm not sure if it's even allowed. So I'm wondering, is it okay to go by Ali Irontoad (even if my username is actually Aiddat) completely on this Wiki, or do I have to call myself Aiddat here too? &mdash; Ali Irontoad (Talk) (Contributions) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may call your self whatever you like so long as it's neither offensive or in violation of Jagex's rules.-- 16:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. &mdash; Ali Irontoad (Talk) (Contributions) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

New rules for signatures
Note: Before stating that you support or oppose these rules, please take the time to read the "Notes regarding the purpose of these rules" and "New signature template" sections below.

Recently, I've noticed that many users have been going around signing pages with signatures that either break the layout of the page or are so large that they, er, just don't fit. As such, I think it might be time to set some rules for signatures:


 * 1) Signatures may not be more than twice the width of a normal line.
 * 2) Signatures may not contain elements that "float"; this includes image thumbnails with the "left" or "right" property, &lt;div&gt;'s with the "float" CSS property, etc.
 * 3) Signatures may not contain deprecated (X)HTML elements.
 * 4) All tag names and attributes must be lowercase, as Wikia pages are served as XHTML.
 * 5) All element attribute values must be enclosed in double-quotes, including numerical values.  Only a single equal sign may separate and attribute name from its value; no space characters are necessary.
 * 6) All tags must have a corresponding terminating tag, as Wikia pages are served as XHTML.  For example, &lt;br&gt; would not be acceptable.  Instead, &lt;br /&gt; should be used.
 * 7) All elements must only use relative positioning.
 * 8) No element may have its CSS "display" property set to "block".  Elements which default to block display must be set to inline display, including divs.  For example, &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; would not be acceptable. Instead, &lt;div style="display: inline;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt; should be used.
 * 9) No element may have its CSS "display" property explicitly declared as being anything other than inline, as different browsers interpret display values differently, excluding block, inline, and none.
 * 10) Signatures may not contain invisible elements or text.  This includes text that is the same color as its background, elements with their display values set to none, and elements with their visibility values set to hidden.  Such text is frowned upon by search engines and could result in the RuneScape Wiki being indexed improperly.
 * 11) As Wikia utilises W3C's XHTML namespace, all W3C standards are to be followed.  ANSI standards which conflict with W3C standards are to be ignored, unless Wikia chooses to adopt ANSI's (X)HTML namespace(s).
 * 12) Personal images may not be uploaded to the Wiki for use in signatures.
 * 13) Signatures may not contain obscene text, images, or other content which could be deemed offensive by another user.
 * 14) A signature must contain a name identifying its owner.  While this does not have to be the actual username of the person, it should contain the name by which the user wishes to be called.
 * 15) All signatures must link to their owners' user pages.
 * 16) Users may only edit their own signatures.  Exceptions are:
 * 17) * Reversions of vandalism
 * 18) * Reversions of inappropriate edits made by users other than the owner
 * 19) * Cleanup/repairing of (X)HTML or CSS so that a signature does not violate any of the above rules or W3C's standards.
 * 20) * Removal/replacement of deprecated features
 * 21) * Type correction/repairing broking links. If a typo is purposely placed in a signature, a comment should be added stating so by the owner.
 * 22) * Moving signatures into the correct namespace
 * 23) * Correcting the titles of signature templates
 * 24) Discussion regarding an individual signature should be posted on the owner's talk page.  If the discussion includes more than two people, it may be relocated to the signature's talk page.
 * 25) Signatures may not contain scrollable regions or extend beyond the boundaries of its parent element.
 * 26) Text within the signature should be short and not include long sentences which are unnecessary.  Thanks to Azliq7 for this addition.
 * 27) Signatures should not flash or blink. This can be distracting and therefore annoying to some users.  Flashing images and text can be dangerous to those suffering from epilepsy.  Thanks to Azliq7 for this addition.

What do you think? 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Updates
 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Added rules 19 and 20, as per Azliq7.</dd> 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)</dt> <dd>Added the "Notes regarding the purpose of these rules" section.</dd> 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)</dt> <dd>Added the "Simplified rules" section.</dd> 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)</dt> <dd>Added the "Signature template" section. Added new information to "Notes regarding the purpose of these rules".</dd> </dl>

Notes regarding the purpose of these rules
These rules are not meant to be followed exactly by every single user who creates a signature. The rules are clearly too complex to be understood by the common contributor, and are designed to be interpreted by a real programmer.

At the current point in time, if a signature is incorrectly coded, a real programmer that notices an error cannot directly modify the signature. Instead, the user must contact the signature's owner directly and explain the whole issue, which often ends in a lot of confusion and more mistakes.

Many signatures out there now contain major errors which cause any pages that contain them to be displayed incorrectly. I've come across some discussions that I literally am unable to decipher, thanks to signatures. If we are going to allow complex HTML/CSS formatting in signatures, we have to have a set of guidelines outlining what can and can't be changed by more experienced contributors.

As such, users should not face consequences for ignoring these rules. In fact, it should be expected that they will not be followed. I will personally review all signatures that I see and tidy up the code to match these guidelines.

I'd just like to point out that most of these rules are not my own. Wikia serves all its pages with the following code at the top of each page: This code more or less forces browsers to interpret the code on a page according to W3C's XHTML specifications. The published version of this specification is many, many pages of technical jargon. While this common set of rules might be good for programmers, it doesn't help us common wiki users, as we have no way to understand the complex information outlined by the specification. I've translated the most commonly violated points of W3C's "rules" into something a bit more like English and listed them as the rules above.

Again, I don't think that it's right for us to expect users to follow these rules on their own. This simply outlines in black and white what more experienced programmers/contributors can and can't change in others' signatures to keep this wiki looking clean.

If it would help, I'd be more than happy to head a team dedicated to updating signatures to follow W3C's specifications without changing appearances. These would more or less be the rules that would be followed by such a group. So, even if you don't support these rules being posted on the normal signature guidelines page, please state whether or not you would support a group dedicated to modifying signatures to follow the technical guidelines outlined above. 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding having to deal with the rules
I spent a few hours today creating what I think is a very versatile and usable signature template that complies with all of the rules above. Therefore, to avoid having to deal with the rules, contributors can simply use the template. Most signatures currently out there can be converted to the template form without changing their appearance. 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature template
I heard the idea of a signature template mentioned once or twice, so here it is: Template:Signature. You can do just about anything with it with little or no coding experience.

If a user opts to avoid the template and use his/her custom coding, other users should be allowed to fix any coding errors without changing appearance. If the template is used, however, there is no reason anybody would need to correct anything without the permission of the signature owner, as it would be very difficult to break a page with the template. This way, we can avoid the whole privacy issue. 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Simplified rules
As I noticed that quite a few people thought the rules were too complex (including myself) for the common contributor, I've come up with a simpler set of guidelines to be displayed on the main signatures page. The more complex rules could be displayed elsewhere—maybe on a separate page dedicated to the "nitty gritty" of how signatures should be formatted.

General guidelines

 * 1) Signatures should not be more than twice the width of a normal line.
 * 2) Please don't add images or templates to your signature with the "left" or "right" property specified.  Thumbnails aren't a good idea in general.
 * 3) Text must be a different color than its background.  In other words, you must be able to see all text.
 * 4) Personal images may not be uploaded to the Wiki for use in signatures.  For more information, please see RS:NOT#HOST.
 * 5) Signatures may not contain obscene text, images, or other content which could be deemed offensive by another user.
 * 6) Make sure to put your username—or whatever you wish to be called, for that matter—somewhere in your signature.  Otherwise, nobody else will know who you are!
 * 7) Be sure to add a link to your user page somewhere in your signature, even if it doesn't exist.  You can do this by typing The text to be shown here .  If you are confused, feel free to ask another contributor.
 * 8) You shouldn't edit someone else's signature, though there are a few exceptions (for example, if their signature gets vandalised).
 * 9) Please don't add any flashing or other moving effects to your signature.
 * 10) Keep it short: don't add full sentences to your signature.

HTML and CSS guidelines
If you aren't sure what HTML or CSS is, you probably don't need to worry about these rules.
 * 1) Try to avoid using HTML tags that don't exist.  If you use old tags that no longer exist, such as &lt;font&gt;, another contributor might fix your signature for you.
 * 2) If you use HTML, try to keep all of the code lowercase.  Of course, the actual visible text (such as your name) can be in whatever case you desire.
 * 3) If you add attributes to HTML tags (such as "style"), please enclose the value in double quotes.
 * 4) Please be sure to end your HTML tags.  If you use &lt;div&gt;, don't forget to end it with a corresponding &lt;/div&gt;
 * 5) If you use a &lt;div&gt;, please add the following attribute:
 * 6) Discussion regarding an individual signature should be posted on the owner's talk page.  If the discussion includes more than two people, it may be relocated to the signature's talk page.
 * 7) Please don't add scrollbars to your signature.

00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Excellent rules! One question: Is my signature ok: Thanks  18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good. Important things I would like to add/highlight: 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Text within the signature should be short and not include long sentences which are unnecessary.
 * 2) Images in signautres should be small, within the height of standard text (0.5 to 1.5 the height of text)
 * 3) Signatures should not "flash" or "blink".  This can be distracting, and can be annoying to some users.  Flashing images and text can be dangerous to those suffering epilepsy.


 * Very good additions. I updated the rules accordingly.  However, I didn't add your second point, as the maximum height of signatures is already specified by Rule 1.  19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

......Wow....I support....wow... 09:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So now to redefine what this means. It is a support, but it's a standard support. This really is too many rules and for some new users whose this is a first wiki would find this rather compelling. I am support because the changes are not really changes, just coding additon, but the general rules are staying the same so the change is just basically formatting. The idea that a unexperienced user would understand this or be able to follow these is another story. I support these rules, but they need to be simplified in English first and more modest. 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I think this is a horrible idea. Way too many rules... to the point that this is micromanaging the problem in a way that it simply doesn't need to be done. A quick glance at the rules above is enough to make me want to just run and leave the wiki. Seriously, if anybody who is new to wiki editing saw rules like this, it is a major turn off and is far too much wiki-lawyering. Simplify this rule set significantly... perhaps to a single sentance: keep your sigs simple and don't overpower the pages where they are used. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess don't impersonate somebody who you aren't, but that should go without saying as well. Of course, I'm not one for fancy sigs anyway, but I'm willing to let those who want to play that game the opportunity to do so. I don't even like color coding of sigs to note admins/bureaucrats. --Robert Horning 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree, the complexity of the rules is certainly intimidating. However, the current "one sentence rule" thing is already in place, and it clearly hasn't worked.
 * Most of the rules outlined are technical specifications which can more or less be ignored by most users. Users can go about making signatures just as they would have before, and I'd be more than happy to go around updating signatures to match the new W3C specifications.


 * To be honest, most of the intimidating rules are not my own; they are W3C's. Wikia has opted to force W3C's specification on all browsers that view the page, which means that if we don't follow them, pages won't work.  With time, pages containing signatures will more or less become illegible.  I have already noticed this happening.


 * If we're going to allow users to use fancy HTML/CSS styling in their signatures, we need some set of guidelines; that's just the way it is. We can either refer them to the W3C specification (which is many pages of technical jargon), or create our own, simpler version.  One way or another, we're going to have to create guidelines for signatures.  The only alternative would be to disallow any formatting in signatures whatsoever.  However, I like the idea of customized signatures: they allow users to express who they are.


 * The main advantage of these rules is that they state exactly how more experienced programmers (like myself; I'm a professional programmer) can and can't interfere with signatures. At the current point in time, if someone has incorrect syntax in his/her signature that is breaking any pages it appears on, I have to go to the user's talk page and carry out the long process of explaining the whole idea of "deprecated tags" and how the signature can be fixed.  With the advent of these guidelines, more experienced signature creators can "fix up" signatures (without changing the actual appearance, of course) without having to scare users with technical jargon.


 * I am not support of users getting into trouble for violating these rules. Rather, they are meant to act as guidelines outline what warrants a signature edit and how that edit can be carried out.  Our wiki will have a much "cleaner" appearance on talk pages (especially in less common browsers, such as Safari and Opera), but at the same time, the privacy of a user's signature will be protected.  19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm looking for is some examples of good signatures and perhaps a couple that are over the top and just a jumbled mess that we should avoid. The way this page currently reads, it sounds like you need to have a signature just to be able to participate on this wiki (which is completely not true).  Both that, and the sig turns into a status symbol.


 * I just don't like the complex rules, although the "simplified" guidelines is better. I've even gone so far as to run for public elective office on a platform of reducing and removing such complex rules of behavior, or at least opposing such legislation.  And yes, I've even been involved in drafting some legislation... including some I'm not really proud of.  I'm also a professional software developer, and I've been able to talk my boss out of such rule making... and refused to write such rules when I was team leader/supervisor, even when pressured to do so by my subordinates.


 * I guess I just have faith in people and don't think policies, especially wiki policies, need to go into such minutiae. Yes, I realize that many of the players (and participants on this wiki) tend to be younger... teens or 20-somethings... which also implies that they push limits and boundaries to what is acceptable.  I don't see that changing by putting in complex rules of this nature.


 * This reminds me of computer language specification meetings trying to decide if you should use a semi-colon or not in a certain place. When the meeting hits the third hour over this one issue, you start to wonder what life is really about.  I had a similar meeting about how to resize a rectangle with a graphical drawing application... which took two hours from my life.  --Robert Horning 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support as the initiator 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and Comment I also, as per Robert Horning see these rules as too many and for someone who is less knowledgeable about computers this may be difficult to understand. Maybe we could come up with a template for signatures to standardize them, increase uniformity, and have a way of following web standards. I agree about the idea of a good signature help guide. - 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the new "Simplified guidelines"? I think they would be better suited for use on the main signatures page, though I still think we should keep the more complex version somewhere.  I'll be working on a template shortly, though I don't think we should require its use.  00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The template looks good and the rules are much easier to understand. - 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Comment - I agree to all the rules except the "Try to avoid using HTML tags that don't exist. If you use old tags that no longer exist, such as, another contributor might fix your signature for you" rule. Although there is no harm in this, I really don't like the idea of editing other users' signatures without their permission unless it to revert vandalism or because the signature violates one or more of our policies. I would definitely like to avoid this if at all possible and instead require contributors to ask for permission on the user's talk page before making the edits. Think about it: How would you feel if you didn't know much about coding and someone came along and edited your signature without your permission? Some people might be alright with it but others wouldn't. I personally would prefer that someone ask me for permission before editing my signature. I will definitely support if this change is made to the proposed rules. 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we end up using the template I added shortly after your post, we should state something along the lines of, "If you choose to do your own formatting by hand, you more or less give us permission to fix any coding errors." If people use the template, they won't violate W3C's rules, and therefore won't go breaking pages.  What do you think?  03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose such an overhaul - Too many rules. Too strict. Too unneeded. A lot of the rules are obvious. 'Don't edit someone else's signature'? That's just standard protocol for a wiki. Don't edit their userpage, don't edit their signature, etc.. It's not that the current one sentence rule isn't working and that people are blatantly ignoring it, it's because they don't know it exists. Link to it from different places and it will get noticed, and abided by. 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The problem now is that people simply don't know how to follow the rules.  The guide itself violated half of them!  Please go back and read the "Purpose of these rules" section, if you get a chance; I think it might ease some of your concerns.  Also, I just added a template—let me know what you think of it.  03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal canceled
While these rules might have had a chance at passing, after receiving helpful feedback from everyone who posted their opinion, I've decided that it probably makes more sense to write the most basic guidelines out on the RuneScape:Signatures page and then create several templates that can be posted on talk pages notifying users that their signatures shouldn't contain flashing content, are too large, etc. I'll also probably work on advancing the signature template which I created yesterday. 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New signature guidelines
Hi, I am a very infrequent editor of the RuneScape Wiki, but I take an interest in issues that could have some effect on the FunOrb Wiki. The recent change to signature guidelines to force users to use a signature template seems to me to be a bit unnecessary for infrequent users, and somewhat inconvenient. The FunOrb Wiki currently has a policy of disallowing signature templates, (see w:c:funorb:FunOrb Wiki:Signatures) so this change would require me to use a work-around to get exactly the same output on both wikis. I look forward to discussing this issue further. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue |  Talk  05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered, why not have signature templates at the FunOrb Wiki? Seriously, not having a signature template means the signature would all be in a "raw signature" format (everything is sub-stringed). This would create massive amounts of lag if you had tons of codes of signatures on one page. Creating the templates would diminish all of the coding so it is not over-crowded with sub-stringed signatures. -- 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the transclusion of the templates each time they occur in the article cause the same amount of lag? I'm not an expert on the matter though, so I could well be wrong. The signatures allowed at the FunOrb Wiki are less complicated also (images and blinking text are disallowed) so lag isn't really an issue anyway. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  07:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it creates more characters which I think creates more lag since templates don't write out the coding on the page, it just displays the signature as it is. And besides, I think blinking text isn't allowed and images are suppose to be small and limited to two. -- 07:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a lot of the signatures on the RuneScape Wiki appear not to follow the guidelines. As for why we disallow signature templates, this policy was introduced by User:Vimescarrot when he founded the FunOrb Wiki, and he based this on Wikipedia's signature policy. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  07:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true. Some of the rules regarding the signature template are not entirely enforced as much as they probably should be. Since RSW is not Wikipedia, we don't see the need to do everything Wikipedia does and therefore have signature templates. -- 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think the FunOrb Wiki's guidelines are slightly less strict than Wikipedia's, but for the most part I think Wikipedia sets a good example to follow. I can see the advantage to signature templates in increasing the readability of source code, but I don't really see this as a big issue. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- 07:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Quartic, you're right, it does create the same amount of lag. In fact, it actually creates more lag because instead of just rendering the page from code, it has to jump across the server, grab the code from the template and then render that. And remember, it's doing this everytime someone has a sig, which is a lot on talk pages. From Wikipedia: "Every time a page is rendered, the server must get text from a separate page for each template used; while each individual template has little effect, the vast number of templates used on Wikipedia is one factor affecting server load and article load times." The only reason this rule is in place is because everyone today seems to need a bunch o' li'l icons by their names, so in the end users like you and I get screwed. -- Couchpotato99   (talk)   (contribs)  01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I don't edit here frequently - I think I can get away with the occasional post with a signature that doesn't fit the guidelines, and if someone objects I could always just sign User:Quartic . I do, however, sympathise with those users who do edit both this wiki and a wiki that disallows signature templates, especially if they don't know of a way to work around the issue. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, I would have thought the exact opposite. I thought that was part of the reason we had templates. To create less lag by not writing out the coding on the page, but to keep it on a separate page to avoid computer freezing. I guess you learn something new everyday. I would, however, like to test the difference between a sig temp and just writing it out on the page via a "ping" tool of some sort, even though I am not that technically savvy to preform such a task. :S 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect there wouldn't be much difference - at least not with a single signature. It could add up though with a page like the Yew Grove. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't think there'd be much change at all either. 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does add up, which is why I introduced the proposal in the first place. For pages with lots of dumped sig code, even when you go to edit it, you experience lag. It happens to me all the time- if I'm on RS and trying to edit the Yew Grove, if for some reason I have to edit the full page, merely typing in characters produces a crazy amount of lag. Let's also not forget the auto-updating feature of using a template. Let's also not forget that the code of a page that's got a ton of substringed sigs is ugly and frustrating to wade through when you're trying to edit. Just because another wiki uses different sig guidelines doesn't mean we have to as well- this is our own wiki and we can use any guidelines we wish to. People "work around the issue" by setting up separate signatures. Lots of sigs (including some here, I might add) might not adhere to the new guidelines, but that's why I go around notifying people that they need to change their signature setup. -- 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're talking about the lag while editing, which will be different to the lag when viewing the page. Signature templates on a page will reduce the amount of code visible when editing, so the lag will be lower, but the cost of transclusion when viewing the page will increase the lag compared to the equivalent page not using signature templates. The auto-updating feature of a template also has its advantages and disadvantages - a small chance to a high use template can really increase the job queue a lot, which will have an impact on performance. It is more convenient than editing all the pages by hand though, so I think in the case of signatures it comes down to whether you want your signature to always look the same, or whether you don't mind having an old signature appear on old pages. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the nosubst thing don't work for me, as i've got = in my username :( --2+2 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Signatures
the current rules fail, there are loads of signatures that disrupts reading. by that i mean those huge sigs.. shouldn't it be a rule that sigs can max be 19px in height?<small style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Verdana;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#5A3D3E;background-color:blue;padding:1px 5px 2px 6px;"> Whale Impact 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Signing?
I'm attempting to sign the page in the massive list - put my mark down and all that jazz - and something's going wrong somewhere. It's probably user error, but it had various effects, such as giving my signature and the signature of the person above me a gigantic black box surrounding their entirety, sticking my signature on the end of someone else's, completely deleting someone else's off the page (I had to revert that one O_o), and other rather frightening events. I think I need some help in what may be one of the simplest bits of coding on the planet =P
 * I've checked the code of your signature, but I didn't find any wiki markup errors. Could be your browser or something. 08:14, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you to whoever fixed the page. I hated leaving it all messed up. 19:09, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Animations
The guideline page says NO animations, yet there are several animations in the 'show off' section (also a lot of flashing and blinking, which is much more annoying, imho). Could I please have some clarification before I go and animate my HP cape (with a beating heart and spurting blood [subtle tho, real subtle]) Csours 18:51, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Animations such as because they are moving images. Flashing and blinking are allowed as they are part of customising your signature. As such, Moving images (animations) are not allowed but flashing/blinking are allowed. Hope I helped! 19:53, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Noob question!
Where would I put a customised signature? I'm sure it's posted somewhere in nice big red letters, but I can't see it.CPLstone
 * It is what you get when you sign your posts with ~, instead of CPLstone (like what you have now) Ajraddatz Talk 00:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, knew that. The question was where would I edit it? Look up for a minute at The Lioness' sig. I have the source for something like that in a notepad page right now. Where would I put it? CPLstone