Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Forging signatures

Shouldn’t we add a small section on that you shouldn’t forge signatures. It could start like “In addition to using your own signatures, you are not permitted to use someone else’s signatures”. Also what about cases where someone has bad grammar and you need to fix the talk page, does that require a signature? WikiGrower1 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing a forged signature, and it would take a number of them to justify expansion of the guideline. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And we don't "fix" others' bad grammar; see WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is my concern, although signature forgery isn’t common, it is serious as it violates integrity and potentially be used to impersonate someone. Is this more of a Wikipedia commons thing? WikiGrower1 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. End. I don't know much about Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@WikiGrower1: We already have a section on this, it's at WP:SIGFORGE and is policy. The action to take is to replace the forged signature with a valid one per WP:SIGCLEAN, and serve a warning for repeat offences. I've seen several instances where a signature has been forged, and which I've fixed per policy. I don't see what Commons has to do with it. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn’t it more common in Wikipedia commons? That’s what I mean by Wikipedia commons. WikiGrower1 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't give any examples. Also, Wikimedia Commons (note, media not pedia) is outside our jurisdiction; if there is a behaviour problem there, you should report it there. I see that c:Commons:Signatures#Rules on customized signatures states: Forging signatures or deliberately concealing one's own identity will not be accepted. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Simple

Should I add {{simple|Wikipedia:Signature tutorial}} to help newbies get a general sense of what signatures are? This pages is chock full of details that are surely confusing for new users. FaviFake (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added WP:4TILDES and an example to what Help:Preferences#Signature has to say. CapnZapp (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Customizing your signature

I've expanded (and corrected) the examples. I do not know how to replicate the icon (white exclamation mark inside a red octagonal) that precedes the red text; if anyone knows how to display <span class="oo-ui-iconElement-icon oo-ui-icon-error oo-ui-image-error"> using wiki markup, feel free to improve. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

manually sign with a pseudonym or tag?

The guideline states Unregistered users, or users not logged in, may choose to manually sign with a pseudonym or tag (e.g. anon.), as their temporary account identifier will be stored in the page history. If you choose to sign your posts in such a way, you must still finish your signature with four tildes (such as Anonymous editing as ~~~~) to help aid others with reading the thread easily, and with communicating back with you.

What does this even try to say? My guess it is a holdover from IP editing days, with only "their temporary account identifier will be stored" presumably being updated from "their ip address will be stored". Perhaps once in the distant past "manually sign with a pseudonym or tag" meant something? Maybe even before WP:4TILDES became standard?

I believe it would be much more direct messaging to say "everybody needs to sign using ~~~~" but 1) we don't need to say this here, in the Customizing signature section, and 2) the software is better and better at autosigning comments anyway.

I am tentatively removing the entire paragraph. If you do restore it, I would appreciate if you explained what information it imparts that remains current and important today. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Manually sign with a pseudonym or tag" still means something: it means to put something at the end of your post that indicates who you are. Someone who hops IPs or TAs frequently might usefully include something manual before the ~~~~ to help continuity of discussion (although creating an account would probably be better).

It looks like text about signing with a pseudonym goes way back to 2003, before the MediaWiki software even existed in its current form and when (according to that diff) ~~~~ only worked for registered users, not IPs. The bit about the IP still showing in the page history seems to have originated in the change removing the by-then-obsolete "for this to work you must be logged in" note, and reads to me like it's countering a claim that manually signing with a pseudonym was "more anonymous" because it didn't show the IP address in the page. The intent seems to have been mangled over the years as various people edited things. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Excellent sleuthing! Do you feel any of this needs to be mentioned in this section (about custom signatures)? To me, some kind of advice might belong, but probably on WP:TEMP, and only if we make it clear you absolutely do not have to link various TAs together (as discussed at WP:SOCK). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need to say anything about it here. If we did say anything, I'd refocus it to something like "If you change temporary accounts frequently (and refuse to just create an account), you might consider including a pseudonym before the ~~~~ to better indicate continuity in discussions". Anomie⚔ 13:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any particular need to say anything about it here. Agreed. If we did say anything, I'd refocus it to something like... Something like that yes. It's possible to argue such a "manual" signature merits a mention here, but I'm inclined to first discuss it over at WP:TEMP and then maybe section link directly to that discussion from here. CapnZapp (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Appearance and color: paragraph tags

Three of the entries in the Appearance and color section are as follows:

• Do not add line breaks (<br />), which can also negatively affect nearby text display.
• Do not include horizontal rules (---- or <hr />).
• Do not include <div>...</div>s because those cause the surrounding text to make a new line.

But I don't find anything that forbids <p>...</p> tags, which can also cause the surrounding text to make a new line. Should these also be forbidden? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Possibly related - is {{subst:pb}} forbidden? CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

{{subst:pb}} adds a <div>, and so would go against the existing rule against those. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

As for your question, The use of non-breaking spaces or span class="nowrap" to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended. This to me suggests - but does not enforce - single-line sigs. If signatures are restricted to a single line, this would (and should) be communicated more clearly, and not as an afterthought in a bullet point about a specific tag? CapnZapp (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

By this I mean a prominent (and free standing) "multi-line signatures are prohibited" would be much better, more clear and more clean. Than trying to name and forbid every single way you can achieve line breaks, I mean. If for no other reason than trying to do that would only be a moderate challenge to any CSS Wizards among us 😎 (Also, I suspect that allowing HTML shenanigans that produce multi-line sigs that still only take up roughly as much space as a clean single-line sig is something Wikipedia would have allowed twenty years ago, before concern for disabled users and users using screen assist technology was even on the radar.) CapnZapp (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Good ideas. I have added some guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think it would be much more clear, much simpler and much more future-proof to state that signatures are only allowed a single line. Than trying to enumerate all the various things that can cause line breaks or new lines. Instead of having three random bullet points ("Do not add line breaks using...", "Do not include horizontal rules", "Do not include <div>...</div>"). Much better would be to state

• Multi-line signatures are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of <br />, <p>, <hr />. <div>...</div> and all other techniques that can cause line breaks or new lines, directly or indirectly.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What about signatures that naturally wrap onto a second line, particularly when viewed on a narrow phone screen? Jonesey95's edit already covers intentional line breaks, what specifically do you think is missing? Anomie⚔ 12:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie here. Sometimes signatures are long, or appear at the end of a line of prose, and should naturally go onto a second line. What we are trying to avoid is deliberate line breaks that appear in every instance of someone's signature. I have simplified the guidance by merging three instructions. Further refinement is possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

How about this?

• ... directly or indirectly. This does not prohibit normal wrapping at the page margins.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What would an "indirect" line break be, aside from normal wrapping at the margin? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for combining the three bullet points into one. CapnZapp (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces

Related: what is the purpose of us recommending non-breaking spaces here? I believe we all agree that just because sigs should be oneliners, doesn't mean they shouldn't line-break normally. I guess my question is: how do you use non-breaking spaces or <span class="nowrap"> to "ensure that the signature displays on one line"... in any other way than normal line-breaks? What is the scenario this text is trying to avoid, presuming it isn't telling users to make sure their browsers are unable to line-break their sigs normally? (I just checked - my "vanilla" sig line-breaks in exactly the way I expect, and I have trouble envisioning any benefit from using nbsp between "CapnZapp" and "(talk)" or inside the timestamp) CapnZapp (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed thousands of editors' signatures in my gnoming (Linter error fixes, mostly), and I almost never see nbsps or nowraps in signatures, and I don't think I've ever seen the need for them. A history search of this page, or a look through the archives, might turn up a rationale. If none is found, I recommend deleting that guidance. It is generally best to let the browser wrap text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The text was first added by Nadav1 (talk · contribs) with this edit way back in May 2007, although the meaning was somewhat different:

• The limited use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is allowed.

It remained unaltered for six years, until it was amended by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) with this edit in June 2013:

• The use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

The next amendment was more than nine years after, when Lol1VNIO (talk · contribs) made this edit in January 2023:

• The use of non-breaking spaces or <span class="nowrap"> to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

This is the present wording, although the underlying markup is not. An (invalid) nbsp was added by FaviFake (talk · contribs) with this edit in March 2025:

• The use of [[non-breaking space]]s or <code><sp<nowiki />an&nbsp;class="[[WP:NOWRAP|nowrap]]"></code> to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

The markup was rewritten by W.andrea (talk · contribs) with this edit in April 2026:

• The use of [[non-breaking space]]s or {{tag|span|o|attribs=class{{=}}"[[WP:NOWRAP|nowrap]]"|link=y}} to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

which I amended the next day to produce the present version:

• The use of [[non-breaking space]]s or {{tag|span|o|attribs=class="[[WP:NOWRAP|nowrap]]"|link=y}} to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

I suspect (but have not checked) that none of these amendments was discussed. But I would say that "recommended" is a stronger word than "allowed". It's like the difference between "SHOULD" and "MAY" in rfc:2119. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Special:Diff/560523897 in 2013 changed it from "allowed" to "recommended", pointing at this discussion on someone's user talk page. The wording "allowing" non-breaking spaces was added in Special:Diff/132632808 in 2007, apparently in response to Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 4#Non-breaking space. I suspect the use of non-breaking spaces is mainly so fancy signatures with borders like this don't wind up with with borders on one line and like this on the next if the line wraps in the middle of the sig. Anomie⚔ 22:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Some very good advice going on there! 🙃 CapnZapp (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe you're right that this was the situation we were initially addressing in 2013 (both me and Pedro had and have sigs with a frame/box around it), but also Dennis Brown has just text but several spaces and changed to NBSPs. Anything besides the basic "Username (talk)" probably benefits from being non-breaking by default. Not that I feel strongly enough about it to fight if consensus goes a different way, I'm just saying, if I had to pick an extreme, I think "all sigs are all non-breaking" is better than "no NBSPs in sigs". I have zero issues with replacing "recommended" with "allowed" since it fundamentally doesn't change anything in practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent detective work. It looks like guidance creep has led to something that doesn't really make sense. I think we should get rid of this guidance item entirely; the word "recommended" appears to be unnecessary, and all sorts of things are "allowed". There is no need to state explicitly that one of many "allowed" things is allowed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The information about non-breaking spaces and class="nowrap" might be usefully added to Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Anomie⚔ 23:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Great work, everybody! The FaviFake-W.andrea-Redrose64 series of edits appear all made in good faith to avoid the minor notice of the <wrap>...</wrap> breaking; not changing the meaning. What's the ground rules then? We don't really "recommend" nbsp's after all? But we do allow them? I can easily see many non-breaking sigs being alright, especially shorter ones, but of course it is possible to be obnoxious about it. I also see that some elaborate sigs really benefit from not being breakable. If I understand "allowed but not recommended" correctly, a modern version of Nadav1's seems great to me:

• The limited use of non-breaking spaces or <span class="nowrap"> to ensure that the signature displays on one line is allowed. CapnZapp (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

As a minor aside, can somebody explain Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 4#Non-breaking space to me? I don't see anything wrong in ais523's illustration. Is this a case where browser technology has progressed? Just asking a stupid question... CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In the example it's fairly subtle, there's a slight increase in line-height for the line with the markup. Some people notice that sort of thing more than others. As for current guidance, that seems about right but I don't know that we really need it in the guideline; as Jonesey95 said, we don't need to enumerate everything that's allowed. Anomie⚔ 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

As for the overall argument There is no need to state explicitly that one of many "allowed" things is allowed I think we should keep separate two things: correcting or updating the advice we do give (returning the purpose to before various edits), and deciding to no longer give out the advice at all. We seem to agree we should fix the drift from allowing non-breaking spaces to recommending them - the recommendation clearly was intended only as a measure geared towards intricate sigs that benefit from them rather than what we got; a wholesale recommendation to make sure any spaces are non-breaking, which we seem to agree makes no sense.

As for the second issue, I am not convinced I see a clear case for going against the good faith improvements from back in 2007 and 2013. Isn't it still useful to remind users non-breaking spaces (or wrap tags) can be used - when justified? Saying limited use is allowed for specific purposes to me sends a clear (and useful) signal, not only that you can use them, but to not use them willy-nilly. This to me seems sufficiently appropriate to perhaps not remove? CapnZapp (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have changed "recommended" to "allowed". I still don't think it's necessary, but I think we have made some progress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Syntax

I sincerely am not trying to be a PITA, but to my logical brain, there's something fuzzy to the current organization. Why are the dos and don'ts of signatures under an "Appearance and color" heading. Perhaps I've read too many programming manuals, but stating things such as use or don't use <tag>...</tag> is exactly precisely literally syntax guidance.

Also, and veering into nitpick territory perhaps:

−

Do not include div...div tags because those cause the surrounding text to make a new line.

+

Do not add deliberate line breaks using div...div tags

Is it just me or is there a difference here. To me the first version says "don't use divs" and then proceeds to explain why. The second version says "don't use divs for this purpose" which implies they're allowed for other purposes?

I will restrain myself to talk talk because I can see how some of you find this not worth improving. I do realize this entire business of regulating sigs is an illusion anyway because of all the RfCs confirming how the community resists hard rules anyway. CapnZapp (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You're complaining about text that's not even in the current page. The current guideline says "do not add deliberate linebreaks using X, Y, Z, or any other means", i.e. the point is the appearance rather than the syntax used. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I am discussing the current page, but I did think simplifying my diff would be helpful. Since it clearly wasn't:

The current text says:

Do not add deliberate line breaks using <br />, <p>, <div>...</div> tags, horizontal rules (---- or <hr />), or other means;

This to me says "don't use <div>...</div> tags to add deliberate line breaks; using <div>...</div> tags for other purposes is not discussed."

The previous phrasing (again to me) was much more unequivocally saying "don't use <div>...</div> tags full stop". Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If, for some reason, someone does <div style="display:inline">...</div>, does that count as a problem with appearance (versus possibly length)? Anomie⚔ 13:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why I rewrote it as I did. The first version was inaccurate. Inline div tags should be fine. Here's a custom version of my sig using a div tag that turns some text orange and does not cause a line break: Jonesey95

(talk to me)

15:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As for why this stuff is under appearance, line breaks are related to appearance. That seems OK to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay so divs were never disallowed, just divs that broke lines. Got it.

Since people are fine with the idea an editor looking for syntax guidance should look under "Appearance and color", I added a helpful hatnote to the "Syntax guidance" section linking those of us who don't see that logic to the right place. CapnZapp (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Anomie that hatnote isn't trying to claim the section is about anything in particular. the hatnote is for editors looking for syntax guidance (what is and isn't allowed in sigs) under a subheader called "syntax guidance". Editors like me. I realize you didn't see this active talk discussion before you reverted, so have a nice day! CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Your added hatnote says For the policy governing disallowed tags and other syntactic elements, see § Appearance and color. So, yes, you are claiming that the "Appearance and color" section covers disallowed tags and other syntax. This is not accurate, as the section merely mentions common ways of achieving some disallowed appearances. Anomie⚔ 11:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would welcome your suggestion for a more precise phrasing! CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason why a hatnote is needed on that section at all, and especially not when it inaccurately describes the alternative location it's trying to send readers to. The sections are fine as they are, without confusing hatnotes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason I have explained that the reason is that editors might be looking for syntax guidance - what to do and what not to do - and so then click the section syntax guidance, except it is the section "Appearance and color" that contains this information. If you feel the hatnote could describe the destination better, User:Amakuru do please make a suggestion. CapnZapp (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If people are looking for "what to do and what not to do", they should read the entire page. Hatnotes won't help with that. Anomie⚔ 23:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the real issue is just the heading. Capnzapp's point that "Syntax guidance" sounds like it would be the place to look for rules about what markup is and isn't allowed has some merit, whereas it's actually a troubleshooting section about markup that won't save or parse correctly. I don't think it warrants a clunky section hatnote, but perhaps renaming "Syntax guidance" to something like "Troubleshooting signature markup" or "Fixing signature markup errors" would make that distinction much clearer, without needing a hatnote or moving any of the existing content? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussions at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

 You are invited to join the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § uw-sigapp and Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § uw-sigapp (2). CapnZapp (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)