Forum:Signature height

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Signature height
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 September 2012 by Spineweilder.

Continuing with the fine series of signature policy threads we have had over the years...

Once upon a time, the signature policy stipulated that "Signatures must not contain pictures that are larger than standard text size." Of course, people made sigs that were too large anyway. This issue was addressed (by myself) in a sig policy thread. Shortly afterward, this happened, apparently without any discussion, adjusting the rule about sig height. Psycho Robot then made this sweeping edit to the signature policy, in which the rule was significantly altered: Sigs could now be 40 pixels in height. Degenret01 scaled that down to 28px, then Psycho Robot boosted it up to 35, where it has been ever since.

As far as I can tell, none of these changes were made with consensus, or as the result of any discussion. Therefore, I seek to officially establish consensus on what the maximum signature height should be.

Where is the problem, you might ask? Look at my sig (permalink for posterity). Is it superfluous and annoying? Certainly. Is it within the confines of the sig policy? Absolutely. I do this because it demonstrates the ridiculousness of allowing sigs up to 35 pixels high; the sigs move from a convenient and cleverly decorated way to identify users on talk pages, to giant billboards that inflate the pages and smother text. Granted, not everyone has a signature that's 35 pixels high, but some are just a bit too tall.

What should the maximum height be? You guys decide. I'm more in favor of a low maximum height, like 12 pixels, but I'm sure most people would have a problem with that. So, get to it: Figure out what the maximum sig height should be. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:25, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


25px - I like 25px. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:29, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

31px - I like 31px now. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:16, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Um, how does one determine their signature height when they don't use any images from the wiki? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:29, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

26px high. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
You're saying mine is? How is that even possible? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Yes. :D Because you made it 26 pixels high? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:34, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
But yours is 25, and mine is clearly shorter? <.< sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:35, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Height, not length. :P svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:35, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
I know, and that's what I meant. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:37, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I changed mine to 35px. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 05:39, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Why did you inflate your signature way earlier than this was made? MolMan 05:30, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

40px - Having a high height doesn't hurt anyone... Hair 05:32, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Leave it - At the moment, I have never been disturbed by a supposedly disruptive signature. Granted, my signature isn't quite the smallest (but, as you acknowledged, so isn't yours), but I've never been told to smallify it or something. I think we should just leave the policy as it is for now and UCS when it comes to new users' potentially huge signatures. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:33, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think your signature is too big. It's what motivated me to look into this matter and eventually write this thread. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:37, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
I thought there was something wrong with your sig, Fswe, since the image looks distorted and it is bigger than it used to be. If it's supposed to be like that then x_x sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:39, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
You mean Veliaf's chathead? What do you mean by "bigger than it used to be"? It's not sticking out of the sig or anything like that... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
(Answering to this Fswe1 subthread) There seem to be two issues, which are a) the line-height inflation caused by the signature in the last line of a user's signed messages, and b) if the user works around this by setting the line-height of their signature to 1 or positions it relatively, the text above the last line may be clipped and it still appears to be way too large for the last line of text. Fswe1's signature falls under b, and AndorinKato's signature revision for posterity falls under a. Both look odd in text.  a proofreader ▸  06:14, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Well, atm, my signature is 31px high, which, by current policy, is fine. As far as I know, text does not clip into it (maybe the very bottom single pixel of a p or a y, but that doesn't matter, does it?). I could scale it down 3px but I don't see much point. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:41, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

28px including all borders and padding, or standard line-height or lower for signatures without images.

 a proofreader ▸ 

06:14, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

≤20px - Tall signatures disrupt the flow of pages, especially in the case of discussion threads. 28 pixels is adequate space to put down your username and a couple of links. If you think this is draconian, go to Wikipedia, where you are not allowed to have any images in your signature (personally I like the idea of that). 222 talk 06:50, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

25px - Is (more than) sufficient. To Hairr and any others in favour of a higher limit, compare this (40px) to this (13pt, a little over regular text size). Keep it modest. Ronan Talk 12:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

25px 31px - Seems like the correct height for signatures, not too big. As per Joey's comment, LEAVE MY CAPE(S) ALONE! :P — Jr Mime (talk) 14:34, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? - It's just a signature, just apply common sense when a signature is clearly disrupting things on the wiki, otherwise, I don't think it should matter. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 17:54, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

12 or 13px - Because anything more is superfluous and unnecessary. With the font-family I use, my signature is 13px high since it is also bold. Without the bold text, it's just 12px. For me, it is disruptive to have multiple lines in a signature, even if they are condensed and length wise, some are worse than others. This should apply to both text and imagery used in the user signature. As I've always understood it to be, it would be 12px for images since before Halo's edit. Of course, this shows how much I keep up with the signature policy edits and the lack of consensus displayed on the policy at hand. Ryan PM 18:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I agree with this. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Your signature is shorter than the font in your paragraph... Anything less than 14 pixels is completely ridiculous. MolMan 20:39, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

23px for text 31 for pics - We don't need to stretch all the way to the maximum before a line break nor do we need to limit ourselves to the bare minimum of information. Yes, having just a name is enough but why should be not be allowed to personalise a decent amount. Now while this is a bit excessive for text size BLAHDABLAHDA an overall height of 23px works fine. MolMan 20:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Leave it - I agree with fwse. Mine just about makes it under the current policy and no one has ever said anything about its size. User:Exor Solieve 20:35, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Question for Andorin - Assuming the allowable signature height is not left in the status quo/increased, what do you propose we do with the 2,148 (give or take) existing signatures that may or may not be breaking the implemented rule? MolMan 20:47, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Leave them alone until they edit, then post a notice on their talk. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

≤20px - The line height of a paragraph is this. At least for the browser I'm on (Google Chrome) with default settings, and default system fonts on Windows 7, which is what the majority of people who use the wiki are most likely on, that is the operating system./bren/tc 07:54, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Support brains's's's' 20px It shouldn't take a large anything to make a good signature. Mine is small, and yet still has uniqueness. BPHUBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:41, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

69 px - Because 69. Top hat (blue).pngLashaziortalkBlack cane.png 17:47, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that 69px is really huge? It's a few px higher than Bob chathead.png, which disrupts text a lot. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:17, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
He was joking, although he shouldn't be. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:51, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Null random comments in a serious discussion. Way to go. >.> User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:04, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Less than 20px --Iiii I I I 02:23, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

btw - Quest point cape.png is 31px high, Signature5.png is 26px high, plain1.png is 32px high, (zammy's original sig) is 35px high, (zammy's current sig) is 49px high, and Fswe's sig is 29px high. My own sig is 20px high. That means a lot of you guys would have to fix your signature if the suggested 20px, 23px, 25px or 28px. What I'm trying to say is that most people are suggesting heights that are way smaller than many of the existing signatures. That might be worth considering. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:47, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

31px - per my message ^there. Way too many signatures would be too high if we'd lower it too much. I do agree Zammy's signature used to be quite high which would disturb the text slightly (and especially now, but that's just temp I assume), so I agree 35px is too high, but 31px (the height of skillcape imagesQuest point cape.png) would be a good height to have as maximum. I think 30px would be a good max height, but because so many signatures use skillcape images, 31px is just more practical. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:47, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Good reasoning, I agree with ye. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:17, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
Sniff No more photoman or hintman but if it has to change I can agree with this. User:Exor Solieve 17:29, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

31px - Joey makes a good point - a lot of sigs use skillcapes. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 17:53, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 31px - That's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high, the images can be shrunk without making them impossible to see. eg Quest point cape.png VNGDCHBucket detail.pngrwojy 18:45, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

They make the capes very very ugly, does my cape disrupts any lines like the 69px one? — Jr Mime (talk) 21:13, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Leave it alone - We don't need rules for every goddamn thing bad_fetustalk 10:38, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

~30 px - Just popping in here to comment, but in the past this policy was really lenient. To my understanding it just had to be reasonably to the height of in-line text such that it doesn't stretch out the lines. Of course people don't use their best judgment and make something obscenely inappropriately large anyways, so there should be a formalism for this rule. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 11:59, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

31px - As far as I think we should have a hard limit, because not having one invites users to misinterpret the 'soft' limit, accidentally or intentionally, and eventually it could lead to a wealth of huge signatures, because people will see one person doing that (who won't be reprimanded because it's just one person and technically they are fine, according to policy) and then do it themselves. Boom, loads of big signatures we can't ignore. (I would see it as hard to enforce a lenient rule strictly enough to stop this occurring in the first place.) Having a hard limit will avoid a bit of unneeded discussion and arguments after this point, like this thread.
And 31px is a fine height. Any other image is usually shrunk down to 25px (or not used in a sig). -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 09:53, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

±31px - Per Joey, it is a fine height. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:24, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

31 px - I like 31px too cqm 19:07,13/9/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

31 px - Seems logical. I used to have a skillcape picture in my signature and it was 15 px lol, looked fine to me. But I think 31 is a good middle-ground. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:53, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

35 px. 31 is much better-looking, but unless everyone starts making their signatures 35 pixels high, I see no reason why a few people can't have an extra-large sig if they really want. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:06, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

So 31 px? Your comment implies that 35 px is acceptable, but only if only a few people use 35 px. If that is so, then that's favouritism towards those who have had their 35 px signatures before the others.  a proofreader ▸  20:24, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Signature height. Request complete. The reason given was: Dead/Finished 31px seems to be consensus. Everything else is just seemingly random numbers.

MolMan 13:58, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Closure - Minimum signature height will be 31px. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 04:14, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

I hope you meant maximum height... 222 talk 04:25, September 23, 2012 (UTC)