Forum:Rules on user signatures

Many signatures almost look like spam, due to bright colors, and large or noticeable text. Plighting's is a great example of a signature that is almost too noticeable. Now, the rules on signatures already make most of this clear:

• From Minecraft_Wiki:Talk_page_guidelines#Signing:

1. Your signature must display your username, or some variation of it.
2. Do not use large text or formatting in your signature; the signature should have no noticeable effect on the line height.
3. Avoid using font colors that are similar to the background color, and font sizes that are excessively small.
4. Keep signatures concise. Signatures are to identify the user, user pages can be used for lengthy descriptions.

The 3rd rule there doens't prevent text-shadows and outlines that are distracting. It also doesn't prevent ridiculous transforms, like this:

• line height is not affected v
• line height is not affected v
• line height is not affected v
• Boxy text, covers 3 lines
• line height is not affected ^
• line height is not affected ^
• line height is not affected ^

My proposal is that all of the following CSS properties be made illegal:

• display,
  
• border,
  
• outline,
  
• text-decoration,
  
• transform,
  
• filter,
  
• text-shadow,
  
• transition,
  
• animation,
  
• background-image,
  
• all, and
• inset.
• background-image includes any background property value that is not a solid color, transparent, or none.
• CSS vars should also be disallowed, but I'm not sure if they work in inline properties anyways.
• It seems that the wiki already bans transform to a degree, because many HTML elements aren't actually allowed to use this CSS property, and the ones that can are not allowed in wikitext and simply don't display if you try to use them.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft oppose It's very restrictive and containing for something so minor. Signatures are supposed to be fun and personal. I agree, some baseline rules should be set in place, but just to prevent disruptive signatures (I.E ones that take up 5 lines of space and that are invisible (which is mentioned and I agree))The general rules are fine, but prohibiting so many CSS features seems excessive. Consumed (Talk│Contributions) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, I really don't think this is a major concern. I was just debating what to do with my own signature. I guess I should have just asked if transcluding it is okay. I think I am going to transclude it for now, since at least then it'll stay consistent across all pages even if I decide to change it. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment I would prefer a gadget to switch off all signature customizations from my view. - BrianGLHF (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. That would be amazing. Unfortunately, signatures have no formatting around them whatsoever. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose - I really don't see the need for this. Users who make obnoxious signatures would probably never read the guidelines in the first place, and in any case, the amount of people who would do this is so few that we could just go to their talk page instead. Also, I really want to keep my text shadow :( 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your signautre is actually fine. In fact, looking back at what I wrote here, I think I was going on a bit of a tangent. Text shadows only cause lag on some devices, and only when used across the whole page, not on just one part of it. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose - This is simply too restrictive. I do not see any point in banning this many CSS properties when they all have legitimate uses. I disagree that all text-shadows and outlines are distracting. Instead, to address the "ridiculous transform", add a rule that says signatures cannot obstruct and cover content. The rest we can discuss on a user-by-user basis. GIM Dianliang233 T C 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong agree - That rule is actually quite a clever idea. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose, your outline example would already be disallowed by your 2. listed point as large formatting. Additionally your proposal for disallowing specific CSS rules creates the implication that all other rules are allowed. Generalized wording is a lot better to ensure the spirit of a rule compared to listing prohibits. Also you have disallowed underlines while keeping this teal box allowed. Should there be any problematic signatures, an admin will reach out to the user either way or you could do that yourself on their user talk page. I don't think any changes are needed to our current guidelines on signatures. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have made this a proposal at all. I only intended to get a better grasp for what's acceptable and what's not. The rule of not covering other text , like this box with 16 shadows: , is the only rule that is relevant here. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 15:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose It's just impossible to ban few of CSS properties. You can literarily use any other property and you get the same result. --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not technically true. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)