MarioWiki talk:Signatures

(First topic)

Going through the rules of this page, very few signatures conform to the rules, many signatures break several of the rules listed here, especially about the {{sigbox}} limit. Shouldn't there be some kind of signature check? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:21, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Lol, just read the header. Good going. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:22, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

These rules are stupid.Saudy^Talk!

Er... That was rash of me. I meant that several of these things seem very minor and silly. Just a few of them particularly.Saudy^Talk!

Five links rule

Does the five links rule apply to repeated links? When a user has two instances in his sig which link to the same page, do they count as one link or two links? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

2 links. Wa _T^C_@^Y 18:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

dkpeety99 told me,

that ur only aloud 2 have one sig. where does it say that? other people have sigs galore! SUPERZ!

We should have a rule about that. I will be amending that into the policy.--Knife (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Rule 10

I clicked on the link, (the one that said signature subpage) and it said "this wiki doesn't have a page for 'User:Superfiremario/Sig'." Can you help? -- Superfiremario 19:53, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

I just searched for it in the search bar, and it showed up. Mario4Ever (talk)

I think it's "User:Superfiremario/sig", where "sig" is not capitalized. The search engine also does not differentiate between capitalized and noncapitalized letters, so that might be your problem. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)}

Signiature?

How do I make a picture signature?

I need to know how to make a perfect picture sig.

Mine was terrible, the pictures were too big, can someone help? --Toadette Rocks! 07:39, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Make sure to size the pictures by having |35px]] after the file name. So something like [[File:Filename.png|35px]]. If you need further assistance with this, let me know and I'll run you through it on your talk page.

Shokora (talk · edits) 07:48, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

I need help please.

--I need a new sig 07:51, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

For future reference: The |35px]] refers to the width, and not the height. Prefix it with an x like this |x35px]] for the height. This sets the height to max 35px, removes/do not make as a link and removes caption [[File:Example filename.svg|x35px|link=|]] --Nikenpelle (talk|sandbox) 10:45, February 24, 2024 (EST)

Make the size of the sigbox longer

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

vetoed by the administrators
This should be a full Proposal: TPP's are for merging, splitting or changing specific pages or groups of pages, not for making policy decisions.
I think that too many people are getting {{Sigfix}} because of their signature's size. I feel that some of them want to be creative and need some room for it.

Proposer: Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk)
Deadline: September 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per...me

Oppose

1. Megadardery (talk) No, the signature is already big enough, it shouldn't be that big.. I think the current size is already more than enough
2. Tucayo (talk) - We aren't a sig showroom, what we have now is more than enough.
3. Icemario11 (talk) - Per Tucayo.
4. UltraMario3000 (talk) - Per all.
5. Yoshi876 (talk) Per Tucayo.
6. Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) M'afraid that the signature is supposed to identify the user in question, so it should not take too much space...

Comments

@Megadardery: It wouldn't be much bigger... besides, you give a lot of {{Sigfix}} reminders anyway. Me, GK Inc.!(talk! · edits!) {{{1}}} 18:42, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

@Tucayo: It would only be longer. Me, GK Inc.!(talk! · edits!) {{{1}}} 18:46, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

You should specify all the details in the proposal. "Increase the sigbox size" is way too broad. --™ The 'Shroom 18:53, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

You could change the title to 'Inserting the signature size limit' or something--

19:10, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

It is already very big, and I already thought about making it smaller, but decided to wait a little before proposing it.--

19:06, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Then everyone would get a sigfix. Me, GK Inc.!(talk! · edits!) {{{1}}} 19:10, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

That's why I said "decided to wait a little before proposing it".--

19:12, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Really, I am actually proposing for people that don't have a sig yet. Me, GK Inc.!(talk! · edits!) {{{1}}} 19:19, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

If you visited SSBWiki before, you would see how tight is their rules, while I don't agree with the 'transcluded' rule (which means that you cannot use {{User:USER/sig}}) I love how they limit their signature height to 20px limit.--

19:34, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Never been there, sorry Me, GK Inc.!(talk! · edits!) {{{1}}} 19:35, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

This really isn't something that can be decided by TPP, but if you want, you can re-launch it as a regular Proposal. - Walkazo 17:38, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Signature Subpage link broken

Where it says "Your signature must be visible on your signature subpage", the link is to Special:Mypage/Sig, which is incorrect according to the top of the page (says it must be Special:Mypage/sig). Tag365 (talk | cont) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (EST)

Yeah, the link has a capital "Sig" instead of the lower case one. I'll bring this up to the admins, don't worry. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 12:09, 5 November 2013 (EST)

Font

"Your signature must fit inside this box: ."

Another gossip-loving Toad (talk)
Another gossip-loving Toad (talk)
Another gossip-loving Toad (talk)

I don't think this works well, because the actual size of the signature depends on the fonts used.

1. If your HTML code doesn't specify what font to use, then it is chosen according to your bowser's settings. People who choose "Courier New" as the default font of their bowser will see my signature breaking the rule, but others don't.
2. If your HTML code specifies the fonts, it may not work on some computers that don't have them. For example, a person may use "Arial Narrow" to shorten the length of text, but if your computer doesn't have Arial Narrow, the text will be at normal length, and the rule may be broken.

--Another gossip-loving Toad (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2014 (EST)

New rule suggestion

A rule to say your aren't allowed to hide links to pages under unrelated text like this. --Hiccup (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2015 (EST)

No, that's really common practice and does no harm - unlike overly-large sigs and setting up the preferences wrong so that it just spits out the raw coding... like you just did, in fact, which just proves my point that we have enough trouble getting people to follow legit rules against distracting, sloppy eyesores: adding frivolous stipulations is the last thing we need to do. - Walkazo 10:51, 22 November 2015 (EST)

What?! I don't, and have never had a custom signature. What are you talking about? And that isn't constructive, calling my argument "frivolous" like that. --Hiccup (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2015 (EST)

"setting up the preferences wrong so that it just spits out the raw coding... like you just did,"

uh Walkazo, signing using the four tildes (--~~~~) will make the coding display like that. Can't really blame users for using the simplest and immediatly visible way to sign. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2015 (EST)

That method of signing's the one presented in the toolbar at the top when you edit. Seems weird to give users the option and then chastise them for it. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

It may be simple, but it works :) --Hiccup (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Ugh, sorry, I forgot it does that instead of pasting straight [[User:X]] without the "(talk)" part (I could've sworn that's how it used to work...), and was instead {{User}} being entered into the preferences without the "subst:nosubst" stuff (which everyone is always leaving out, so it's a major pet peeve of mine). That's what I get for editing in a hurry before work... - Walkazo 13:20, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Broken Signature

My signature is broken, help. --'''[[File:Green Yoshi.PNG|25px]] [[User:GrainedCargo192|<span style="font-family:serif;5:#f001">♦GrainedCargo192♦</span>]] [[File:SMWSMA2BooSprite.png|25px]] ''' (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

Forget signature

What do you do when a user forgets to sign on a talk page? File:Koops - PMTTYD.pngKoops (message) 12:56, 29 June 2018 (EDT)

You would add {{unsigned}} under their comment, with their name as a second parameter. For example: {{unsigned|Username}} 12:59, 29 June 2018 (EDT)

Retired/inactive user has a rule-breaking signature

Time to finally bring it up. What should we do if a retired/inactive user has a rule-breaking signature, like the signature on the bottom which is too big? (And it's only one example of many) I can't give them a {{sigfix}} because they are inactive and won't see it.

VideoBoo Eeheeheehee...

Yoshi Egg 1990 15:16, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

While the rule for image heights was added upon MarioWiki:Signatures's creation, there isn't much of a point of fixing these. There are a lot of inactive users, most with broken or rulebreaking sigs. If they return, they can be told to fix it. Otherwise, all they really affect are talk pages. Not much of an issue. 15:26, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

35px height and line spacing under §7

§7 states

One or two small images may be used, both limited to 35 pixels in height. One animated gif may be used instead of two static images, although it is strongly discouraged. The images must not interfere with line spacing or collide with either of the lines above and below it, and if they are found to be too distracting, you will be asked to remove it. If you add your own image, it counts as one of your personal images and should be tagged with {{personal-image|sig=yes}}.

It's the wording, The images must not interfere with line spacing or collide with either of the lines above and below it, ..., that I can't get to fit within the height limitation of 35px. Font size is set to font-size: 14px;(15px on mobile) and line-height: 1.5;

In my book that gives me 14 * 1.5 = 21 to not interfere with other lines? I am wondering where the 35px comes in to play?

Maybe signatures should be rendered in a container with overflow: hidden;? --Nikenpelle (talk|sandbox) 11:27, February 24, 2024 (EST)

The part about "interfere with line spacing or collide with either of the lines" causing some confusion has been removed.[1] However you can still bring up that the images on signatures are too big. I agree that the signature from Alex95[2] is distracting and impedes on discoverability/searchability but the sigbox was a bit of a compromise between readability and customization, and changing the rules to shrink the image to improve readability might invite opposition by those who use larger images. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:58, April 27, 2024 (EDT)

Grammatical mistake

I found a grammatical mistake in the sentence describing the second method for adding a signature. It says, "Creating a userspace subpage at Special:MyPage/sig (it must be /sig, and just one subpage), then following the instructions Help:Signature to "include" the subpage in your signature field." In this sentence, the word "on" is missing between the words "instructions" and "Help:Signature." Can someone correct this mistake? I cannot fix it because I'm not an administrator. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 19:55, May 15, 2025 (EDT)

Make signatures no longer use EST

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Sunday, January 11, 2026, 00:41 GMT

Per my proposal on the Featured Articles page. GMT is the easiest timezone to convert to. Much easier than converting to EST. We could perhaps also make it so timezones automatically get snapped to your preferred one.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: January 17, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support (use GMT)

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary option.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Honestly now that the wiki uses GMT as its server time and for proposals, and now for feature article nominations as well, it is best to establish a standard across the entire wiki rather than on a case by case basis. With that said, GMT (which is the equivalent of UTC, or UTC+0) is widely regarded as the global standard while EST is inherently American. I know it would be a jarring shift in talk page comments over the wiki but its a one time shift, and I think it is better than the confusion of talking in EST under a post with a due date in GMT. I don't understand what the half-support option is aiming to do.
3. Jdtendo (talk) Per LadySophie17.
4. Arend (talk) Secondary option, I think; it is kinda weird that all the signatures are set in EST, regardless of which time zone you are, when proposals and now featured articles go with GMT instead (which in fact appears to reflect with the server time, too)

Half-support (let timezones get snapped to your preferred one)

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Wandering Poplin (talk) Secondary. Sounds better than the main option.
3. Jdtendo (talk) My preferred option, provided that this is feasible.
4. Altendo (talk) I didn't fully realize the status quo until I saw it today. Anyways, I feel like this is the most feasible option for all of us, and this would allow us to use a time zone we are all familiar with. I might support the first option if PorpleBot can change all of the EST comments and signatures.
5. Arend (talk) Primary option, I think (if possible, anyway); it always bothered me that my comments are always set in EST despite me being in a completely different time zone. And most of the wiki's time-limited things (well, proposals, and now also featured articles) also do not use EST either, so it is overall confusing.
6. Sorbetti (talk) Secondary option. Per all.
7. Power Flotzo (talk) My second option, also assuming this can be implemented.

Oppose (status quo)

1. Wandering Poplin (talk) Per the opposition on your previous GMT proposal. The arguments made by Mari0fan100, Altendo, and Power Flotzo seem equally applicable to this proposal as well.
2. Sorbetti (talk) I must say that the way the proposal is presented, with so much math and calculations, is overwhelming, making the reading tedious at times and somewhat obscuring the proposal's topic. Otherwise, per Wandering Poplin.
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per my opposition on the previous proposal.
4. Altendo (talk) Per what I said in the previous proposal (thank you Wandering Poplin for pointing this out). EDIT on 09:39, January 9, 2026 (EST): Reinstating this is a secondary option due to this being a "jarring shift in talk page comments over the wiki" until my concerns in my other vote get resolved.

Comments (Universal Coordinated Time-rs)

...I think you're making it sound way more complicated than it needed to be. Just say that it's strange that the signature timestamps use EST instead of GMT like the proposals, and regardless of what each user's personal timezone is in their time offset preferences. You really didn't need to post a wall of text full of calculations that no one wants to read because it's too long.
Also, I've seen people in the opposition perring Mari0fan100 and Altendo in the previous proposal in particular, which mentioned things things like "it should be an option which time zone you want to use instead of enforcing GMT to everyone". The thing is, as I said before, you can already do that, but that does not affect the timestamps on your signature whatsoever. If it did, then all of my signature timestamps should've been shown in the CET timezone (or CEST in summertime), instead of EST. Meaning that the EST timestamp thing isn't something set by personal preferences, but instead by something in the wiki's internal code, in turn meaning it's something that's already globally enforced, and wouldn't actually change anyone else's preferences if it were set to GMT or UTC. rend (talk) (edits) 15:42, January 3, 2026 (EST)

Yeah maybe I went a little overboard with the calculations but doesn't the wiki technically already force GMT with proposals and such. And even if this proposal doesn't pass. Then what? That would just mean that we're still forced to use EST. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:09, January 3, 2026 (EST)

Alright, @Wandering Poplin @Sorbetti @Power Flotzo @Arend, I updated the proposal. And it now has an option that I think you will all like. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:42, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I just realized something. Hey @Wandering Poplin, @Sorbetti @Power Flotzo and @Altendo, why wouldn't GMT work for you guys? And what's the thing that makes it that EST does work for you guys? Like, what is it that makes EST work better for you guys than GMT. As I (and @LadySophie17) said; EST is inherently American (or in other words: too American) and this is an international wiki. Besides, GMT is better recognized than EST because GMT is equal to UTC+0, which makes it easier to understand how late it is in GMT compared to your timezone (except if you live in GMT of course). So let me ask again: what is it that makes EST work better for you guys (and just the whole wiki in general) than GMT? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 07:15, January 6, 2026 (EST)