25,928
edits
Forum:Signature policy: Difference between revisions
m
TSH, replaced: DL Sprite Aqua Icon 1 KHBBS.png → Aqua Sprite KHBBS.png (2), DL Sprite Aqua KHBBS.png → Aqua D-Link KHBBS.png (2)
m (TSH, replaced: DL AquaAvatar1 → DL Sprite Aqua Icon 1 KHBBS (2), DL Aqua → DL Sprite Aqua KHBBS (2)) |
m (TSH, replaced: DL Sprite Aqua Icon 1 KHBBS.png → Aqua Sprite KHBBS.png (2), DL Sprite Aqua KHBBS.png → Aqua D-Link KHBBS.png (2)) |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
{{EO|time=01:07, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|hooded=I agree with Kryten's standpoint on things. Some of us use the "option" feature on our signatures. The mouseover will remove any uncertainty as to who's who, and as long as your main username using the standard alphabet ("A,B,C,D...") is within the list of possible choices, I don't see how there's anything wrong with doing this. | {{EO|time=01:07, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|hooded=I agree with Kryten's standpoint on things. Some of us use the "option" feature on our signatures. The mouseover will remove any uncertainty as to who's who, and as long as your main username using the standard alphabet ("A,B,C,D...") is within the list of possible choices, I don't see how there's anything wrong with doing this. | ||
In terms of image sizes - I've seen Wikis that don't allow images, and I've seen them with size limitations. I think it all just depends on the image you're using. An image like [[File: | In terms of image sizes - I've seen Wikis that don't allow images, and I've seen them with size limitations. I think it all just depends on the image you're using. An image like [[File:Aqua D-Link KHBBS.png|90px]] is practically unreadable at a smaller size than 90px. Same for [[File:Aqua Sprite KHBBS.png|50px]], which is hardly visible or idtentifiable like the user wants as the images's subject at a size smaller than 50px. Keyblade images are popular in signatures and are only visible at at least 30-35px. Character renders are very hard to fit into signatures, and should not be used AT ALL, since no matter how you size them, they're still a nuisance in things like the Keyblade War or Mirage Arena, taking up too much space. The point I'm trying to make is that people use the images to decorate their signatures. They're just empty and extra space if you can't see them. That's why, for the sake of the community, we should create different pixel limits for each image type (Keyblades, D-Link Images, etc) rather than one applicable for all.}} | ||
{{DTN|time=01:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=...ENX, you just missed the ''entire point'' of image restrictions. | {{DTN|time=01:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=...ENX, you just missed the ''entire point'' of image restrictions. | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
Similarly, images are optional in a signature, so this is like a restriction on them that only applies ''if'' you choose to use them.}} | Similarly, images are optional in a signature, so this is like a restriction on them that only applies ''if'' you choose to use them.}} | ||
The problem I have with that argument is that the idea that the policy should allow for users to choose the pictures they want kind of negates the point of having a policy in the first place. Not that we can't be more lax than x15px in height. After all, x20px is still small enough to fit on a single line with no trouble whatsoever. And I don't think [[File: | The problem I have with that argument is that the idea that the policy should allow for users to choose the pictures they want kind of negates the point of having a policy in the first place. Not that we can't be more lax than x15px in height. After all, x20px is still small enough to fit on a single line with no trouble whatsoever. And I don't think [[File:Aqua D-Link KHBBS.png|x20px]] and [[File:Aqua Sprite KHBBS.png|x20px]] are too unrecognizable. --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 01:36, December 16, 2010 (UTC) | ||
{{EO|time=01:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|annoyed=It seems to me that now we're just making policies for the sake of making them. The issue was brought about because of something as stupid and irrelevant as the Keyblade War. Signatures and the images in them have little to no effect on a talk page, especially since 3/4 of us use talk bubbles anyways, and those of us that don't use talk bubbles 24/7 have signatures that fit the requirements of this little policy you all are trying to create. The only time where this could be a problem would be in another Keyblade War-like situation, the Mirage Arena, which is COMPLETELY FOR FUN and has NO EFFECT on Mainspace. Hence it should NOT be a problem. I don't see why we can't be more leniant and just say "Fine. We can't expect you all to obey." Warning/banning someone because they fail to abide by a signature policy (which it is inevitible that this will be the case eventually) is sort of lame in the grand scheme of things in the long, sad history of things to be warned/banned for. The fact that three quarters of a policy is based on ONE PERSON's OPINION rather than a majority of the community (which I really don't see how their input matters, sometimes) really makes it not worth having. A worthwhile policy is one that the COMMUNITY feels should be enacted. Community support is saying "Yeah, I notice that too. We should develop this, and here's how I think how...". Saying "I approve of this one person's idea, let's do it" is NOT getting the community support needed for a policy. It's simply saying "My opinion doesn't matter. May as well just follow the crowd." | {{EO|time=01:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|annoyed=It seems to me that now we're just making policies for the sake of making them. The issue was brought about because of something as stupid and irrelevant as the Keyblade War. Signatures and the images in them have little to no effect on a talk page, especially since 3/4 of us use talk bubbles anyways, and those of us that don't use talk bubbles 24/7 have signatures that fit the requirements of this little policy you all are trying to create. The only time where this could be a problem would be in another Keyblade War-like situation, the Mirage Arena, which is COMPLETELY FOR FUN and has NO EFFECT on Mainspace. Hence it should NOT be a problem. I don't see why we can't be more leniant and just say "Fine. We can't expect you all to obey." Warning/banning someone because they fail to abide by a signature policy (which it is inevitible that this will be the case eventually) is sort of lame in the grand scheme of things in the long, sad history of things to be warned/banned for. The fact that three quarters of a policy is based on ONE PERSON's OPINION rather than a majority of the community (which I really don't see how their input matters, sometimes) really makes it not worth having. A worthwhile policy is one that the COMMUNITY feels should be enacted. Community support is saying "Yeah, I notice that too. We should develop this, and here's how I think how...". Saying "I approve of this one person's idea, let's do it" is NOT getting the community support needed for a policy. It's simply saying "My opinion doesn't matter. May as well just follow the crowd." | ||