Forum:So this is how we occupy our time?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > So this is how we occupy our time?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 May 2010 by Calebchiam.

I was browsing the Yew Grove this evening and noticed that my signature had suddenly shrunken. Curious, I checked my signature template where I discovered that it had been changed for violating rule #4 of the signature guidelines, which is signatures must not contain pictures that are larger than standard text size. As you can see, my signature contains no images. If it was changed because of the font size, I will point out that it is only slightly larger than the normal text size and virtually the same size as any signature images. I have also had this same signature for a good six months now with zero complaints. Now, I would be OK if it was changed if the circumstances weren't like this, but I was not notified ahead of time, nor was I notified after my signature was changed. After discussing this issue in the clan chat, I have discovered that signatures are being forcefully changed en mass and that it's OK to do it without asking ahead of time. Really now, how hard is it to leave a message on someone's talk page that says something like "Hey, your signature appears to be violating this rule ___, can you please change it?". I was told that it would take too long as there are a lot of signatures that need to be here's the interesting part: has anyone actually had a problem with all of these signatures that are supposedly violating minor rules (i.e. text is a little too big)? This has lead me to believe that the only people that have a problem with it are the few people that are going through and changing everyone's signatures.

So, as you can see by the title of this this how we occupy our time now? Are there not more important things to worry about than "Oh, his signature is just a liiiiittle too big!"? If there is a signature that is seriously distracting or getting in the way, then by all means it should be changed, but it bothers me that people are going out of their way to shove signature guidelines in peoples faces, especially when it isn't always correct. It certainly seems rather draconian to me, and it sure as hell doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of the wiki.

Just my two cents. Andrew talk 01:46, May 8, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Support - Feels a bit like they're so stringent on making sure they're not too big that they'd be all about measuring the pixel heights and even more unnecessary extremes. There are much more important things to be doing than checking every single signature to make sure it's not 23 pixels... I am not vot, I am Melon! 01:55, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It shouldn't have been changed, he should have left you a talk message, but do we honestly need another forum thread complaining about something? HaloTalk 01:57, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people generally complain when they see something as a problem which may need fixing... clearly they believe it's needed... I am not vot, I am Melon! 01:58, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Why the double standard? I thought Andrew's signature needed fixing and I fixed it. I may have cited rule 4 when rule 4 (by the letter) is about images, but rule 7 clearly states restrictions on vertical size. So why do you assume good faith for him in complaining about the changes but not me in making the changes? Endasil (Talk) @  06:19, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong, I'm sorry. I'm just somewhat tired of these typs of threads. HaloTalk 18:46, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a case of RS:UCS. The signature policy exists so that users can be easily identified, without being overly disruptive to the other lines of text. If a signature has only a few protruding tidbits, I don't see a problem with that, as long as it does not obstruct other text. Andrew's signature did not do that, so there is no problem. I noticed that a few other signatures were also changed, like 3i+1's and Azaz's. In the case of 3i+1's, it's reasonable, since it was disrupting the spacing. However, I think that modifying Azaz's signature is a bit of an overkill. He has had it for much longer than Andrew had his (I think around 2 years now), and there has never been a previous problem. Also, I see a bit of lack of consistency and prioritizing. While things like

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

are modified, others like  Panjy16  are not. Which disrupts the natural spacing of the lines more? Jill's. Which got modified? Azaz's. --LiquidTalk 02:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict x3) - No one has commented or notified you for 6 months, because the amount of violating signatures is very out of control. Things have been so out of control for so long, that really, the general community has given up. This is something, that may seem tiny, but can negatively affect the wiki. Large and bold (not the formatting bold) signatures can be distracting, and detrimental to when we read discussions. I'm in the process of writing up what I think RS:SIG should be, which seems to be fairly Draconian in many peoples' eyes. I'm not going to propose it, as it'll be blatantly opposed, probably by the users with violating signatures. I'd also like to point out how your signature is larger than text size:

The top of the A goes above the normal Arial text height, therefore creating a line break, as well as the top of the "talk" superscript. That's a bad example, as there already was a line break above. But if it was in a normal paragraph of text, it can confuse between when someone's "comment" ends/starts. Chicken7 >talk 02:01, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd also like to add that in Andrew's case, I think it was a bit overkill, and the signature should have been left as is. He should have also been notified afterwards about the change. Chicken7 >talk 02:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Chicken, your signature has the same problem. If you look, it also causes an extra line break. --LiquidTalk 02:16, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - (photo courtesy of 3i+1) 3i+1 mentioned that if we are going to rigirously enforce this policy, even my signature violates policy, since it has<sup></sup>.

My signature causes a line break also, and yet it consists simply of plain text. If I were forced to change my signature (along with the million other users with the same signature layout), that would be ridiculous. --LiquidTalk 02:13, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

That it does. Superscript and subscript coding should be allowed, if <small> is used. Even though it creates a line break, the change is minor and hardly recognised, in your example picture, you/Iiii I I I went to the trouble of getting the exact amount of pixels. Such methods shouldn't need to be used. That's worse than what these guys have, and they're the leaders of Draconian policies. Chicken7 >talk 02:24, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - While the changes were unwarranted and numerous, we need more watch over this. Here are a few examples of broken rules:
Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface [1]
Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface [2] (Note that Parsonsda also has another Signatures template at Template:Signatures/Parsonsda for [3])
The cash is mine! I am the ultimate bargain finder (when I'm bothered to try:P) The random Iloveaboy2!!!The best chocolate armour!!!(I clicked random page for this pic >.> [1]
The cash is mine! I am the ultimate bargain finder (when I'm bothered to try:P) The random Iloveaboy2!!!The best chocolate armour!!!(I clicked random page for this pic >.> [2]
Now while I see that those signatures have images "larger than standard text size," I am listing them due to violation of Rule 2, which appears to been forgotten about (seeing the masquerade on the signatures tonight). Those tables are more of a nuisance than some people's adoration for the changing of text sizes. I really cannot make an appeal for why we should have images within signatures (Do you in reality?) or why we shouldn't (people like to be decorative/specialized) have images. I also do not see why signatures that cause an indention in writing should be changed. If the slight change in spacing really confuses people, maybe they should read to where the signature is placed. It would be nice to have a more transparent policy than a "draconian" rule set. Of course we could adopt an even more strict policy like [[w:c:funorb:FunOrb Wiki:Signatures]]. Ryan PM 02:38, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think the line breaks is not such a huge issue, although we do have images that are just too large. I think setting a pixel limit could be a solution. I did suggest this in the last forum, but an admin decided to close it, despite further suggestions. I think the tables/boxes/backgrounds are a problem. They are distracting. As soon as I opened this page, the first thing that caught my eye was those bright colours. Even when I was reading your comments, my eyes were constantly being drawn to those signatures. Although that may be the designer's purpose, it should not be allowed, in my honest opinion. Chicken7 >talk 02:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Still, the Rule 2 of RuneScape:Signatures is not being followed, which was the majority of that comment. This has been said a hundred times and counting, fix what's broken. Ryan PM 02:50, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we should not allow those bright siggys. But really, some of those rules are simply too strict. I'm not allowed to use the random function in my signature? That's just stupid. Amethyst II Talk 02:55, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
RS:DDD Ryan PM 02:56, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
You should only have 1 signature. Many signatures can confuse users greatly. Is it really necessary to have multiple signatures? Chicken7 >talk 03:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was left alone for 6 months is irrelevant. It was breaking policy that whole time, I just wasn't here to enforce it and nobody else cared to. Endasil (Talk) @  06:19, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the fact that permission should be obtained, that's unrealistic given the scope of the changes. Endasil (Talk) @  06:19, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

As for the fact that other peoples' sigs violate policy MORE, since when is that a valid defense? I was going to get to the others, but many of the ones cited are for people that are no longer active so obviously they're not high priority. Endasil (Talk) @  06:19, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I just want to say to anybody who had it changed; don't take it personally. The changes were made summarily and without notification because editing 300 signatures is time consuming enough without having to individually go to every talk page and explain the actions. If you have issue with the changes, undo the changes and we'll talk about it on a case-by-case basis. We don't need a YG discussion for every disagreement. Endasil (Talk) @  06:23, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm a little offended that you attack my priorities given you think it's worth taking time away from editing to discuss such an issue. But if you want to know my actual motivations, it was to enforce the result of Forum:Signature Policy. Only I didn't think it was right to go and enforce that new policy without at the same time enforcing policies that have been around for a long time. Endasil (Talk) @  06:28, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Obtaining permission is ideal but is obviously not necessary. I just don't think it's fair to change someone's sig without telling them afterwards which leaves them wondering what happened. I thought my browser was acting up until I finally checked my signature template. As for signatures violating the policy MORE, it is a VERY valid defense. Look at the screenshot of my signature on this page. It's just barely over the limit. That's exactly what the point I'm trying to make is: it isn't a big deal. I have absolutely no problem with you guys going through and fixing signatures, but is it really important to screw up everyone's sig because it's a few pixels over the line? As for this being a YG discussion about an individual disagreement, it isn't; this is a discussion about why these changes are being made and whether or not they should be made this way. And finally, I am in no way attacking your priorities. I am simply trying to stress that although it is not a bad thing to be enforcing this policy, there is such a thing as being too strict. Andrew talk 06:30, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to note that when you include obscure fonts, not all environments will display those fonts. In my case, I run on Linux and your signature shows up nothing like in Chicken's image. It's a completely different font. It's much bigger when rendered in my browser than it looks in Chicken's image. Endasil (Talk) @  06:31, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

I will consider changing the font later, but this discussion isn't just about my signature. Andrew talk 06:34, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Since you're basically attacking my motivations, I think it's relevant and important for you to understand where I'm coming from. Here's what your sig looks like to me:

Endasil (Talk) @  06:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Even in that picture only the tops of the letters are above the line and I will consider changing the font, but as I said before, this discussion is not about my signature. I understand why you changed my signature, but let us focus on the broader subject. Andrew talk 06:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Is the broader subject about being too strict? Well then I would say it IS about your sig since that's the sample you used to define "too strict". You should note that I let a LOT go that were obviously larger than a line of text but not big enough to make a big stink over. Yours was, of every single signature I looked at, the most intrusively huge signature when viewed in my environment. So if there was one that should have been changed in my eyes, it was yours. Is the broader subject about how I occupy my time? Again, I would say it's not really any business of yours as long as I'm bettering the Wiki, following policies and trying to be beneficient. Just like you think it's worth taking the time of the community talking about something that you've already declared to be trivial. Can't you see how much more of a time-waster it is to publicly fault someone for how they spend their time than how they actually spend their time? Endasil (Talk) @  06:49, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I am more than happy to provide more examples of signatures if you wish, and they aren't all done by you. You are not the only one fixing signatures, correct? Andrew talk 06:55, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Within Forum:Signature Policy, I did not see the consensus pointing towards the mass change of signatures. So you are just going through Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Signatures to see if they do violate the policy? While this is your vendetta right now (or previously), the main concern should be to follow those rules like #2 where (as shown above) some users had more than one signature, that isn't to say that <choose> and <option> are prevented from usage (as long as they don't change too much). A valid example of choosing can be assessed with the change of Soldier's signature. His signature complied to all previous and current rules, yet it was changed. Why? Twenty-five pixels don't have that great effect to make it an image larger than standard text size, no. As I currently understand, I could have as large a signature I want as long as it doesn't contain images. However, the double and triple signatures held by some individuals are not dealt with. Why? Ryan PM 06:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where people get the idea that you need consensus to enforce existing policies. And I've already said that I didn't think it was fair to people to introduce and enforce a new signature policy without being consistent and enforcing existing ones. Endasil (Talk) @  06:49, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to do that without being overly strict, no? Andrew talk 06:50, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, and this is why again I say that you just have a problem with your specific case. Of all the signatures, about 70% break the letter of the law (slightly too large), about 40% obviously, and about 10% intrusively. I focused only on the 10%, letting the other 60% slide. You were in the 10%. So again I say I'm not being too strict, you just have issue with your case. Endasil (Talk) @  07:06, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Read:

==Rules for making signatures==

# Signatures '''must''' link to the user's userpage. Furthermore, that text must uniquely identify the user by either including the username ''verbatim'', an obvious abbreviation of the username, or another name by which the user shall be ''consistently'' known.
# Users '''must not''' have more than one signature.
# Signatures '''should not''' have more than two pictures per signature: large numbers of pictures may slow down some computers.
# Signatures '''must not''' contain pictures that are larger than standard text size.
# Signatures '''must not''' contain line breaks (as this upsets the numbering in signature lists, etc).
# Signatures that use HTML tags '''must''' be balanced, for example every <span> must have a matching </span>.
# Signatures '''should not''' span multiple lines of text. In other words, they should be one line of text in vertical size.
# Signatures '''must not''' have animations in them. Flashing or blinking text by way of CSS is also not allowed.

*Please add the code <code><noinclude>[[Category:Signatures|{{ucfirst:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}]]</noinclude></code> to the end of your signature to properly categorise it.

Now where does it say that my text must be "x" size? Ryan PM 06:53, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Signatures should not span multiple lines of text. In other words, they should be one line of text in vertical size. Plus, rule 4 encapsulates the spirit of the rule but was erroneously created only to reference images (since back in the day when I/we created that rule, it was only really images that were the problem; people were good about keeping the text small). Endasil (Talk) @  06:56, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, and my signature, Azaz's old signature, Ryan's signature, etc do not span multiple lines and they are all one line of text in vertical size. I don't see any specifications besides "vertical size". Andrew talk 06:59, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not one line of text in vertical size. The vertical size of your signatures is larger than the vertical size of a normal line of text. Endasil (Talk) @  07:02, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
"Signatures should not span multiple lines of text. In other words, they should be one line of text in vertical size." Now tell me the difference between should and must. Lastly, I know that my signature appears small with the font style I have chosen prior to the pixel modification. However, on the iPhone the fonts don't appear, making my appear as it's spanning 1.2 (or closely) lines. If we are going to change signatures en mass, then change it to must. Just a minor change in diction might help, or maybe that extra thirty woeful seconds to add a minor message to the user affected. Ryan PM 07:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I support the rigid enforcement of policy in this case. Notice that the increase of 8 pixels that results from superscript is a 32% increase in the normally 25 pixel space. Personally, I interpreted RS:SIG to mean that text size and picture size should be the same size as normal text without extending into the space at all. Also notice that 30 seconds to add a talk page notice adds up when 300 notices have to be made, and notice that there is a valid argument for removing most of the images that people have in their signatures. Leftiness 14:08, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment If we had John Hancocks in here, boy, he'd be one to speak. — Enigma 14:22, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted. Enjoy. Wink Ryan PM 15:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
That signature's size violated the signature policy, so I had to make it smaller. ;o (davelopo) 15:58, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Changed it back to retain comedic purpose and practicality (albeit, little) to the discussion. Ryan PM 16:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This feels like an example of the instruction creep that is slowly evolving around here, we have the most anal retentive enforce of policies to the letter that it is ridiculous. I feel as if I'm back in Puritan America with each neighbor watching to make sure I haven't violated some irrelevant policy or am going to church often enough, or are making sure my property line is accurate to the millimeter. The RSWiki is supposed to be a site that maintains professionalism yet at the same time not to the point that we have administrators walking around measuring pixels for christ's sakes. We're supposed to be creating policies based on commonsense not to follow them to the letter just because some here happen to be trying to slowly get rid of stylised signatures one ludicrous rule at a time. From what I gathered, the original discussion was supposed to counter the multi-lined signatures not inflate Big brother's ego.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

16:27, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that I DID let most offending signatures slide. Andrew's is humongous, plain and simple. You're accusing me of pointless enforcement of obscure policies, but that is NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING. I have been ignoring about 90% of the violations and focusing only on the ones that I find disruptive. So lay off the attacks, and if you question my motivations, at least READ my responses. Endasil (Talk) @  18:26, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
You're not the only one enforcing this ridiculous policy, I'm addressing everyone changing the signatures in general, and as such not every comment here is meant as a pointed criticism of you.-- 18:33, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Then we should be naming names and confronting people. This entire discussion is commenting on peoples' motivations, and if you don't say whose, it's just attacking a straw man. It's hard to defend ourselves, nor can we improve our enforcement, without people citing which instances are troubling to them. Unless you think that we shouldn't enforce our own policies at all? I commented on Andrew's since obviously it instigated this discussion. If there's more, out with it! Let's say which so we can discuss it instead of just accusations of poor faith without supporting evidence. Endasil (Talk) @  18:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I want the damned policy modified as that's the root here that's causing the blossoming of these issues, policies should be based on common sense, not an arbitrary line of this causes too many pixels difference between text lines.-- 18:42, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
It should say "Signatures should be a reasonable size with limited superfluous text and pictures. Any signature that does not fit this criteria may be changed". 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:52, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I have changed them to what Atlandy said. It would be nice if we could work towards a happy close of this forum now. HaloTalk 18:58, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Then we have people having unnecessary, possibly heated discussion about whether the signature is too big. People argue about abuse of power, infringing the right to expression, messing with the style of the page, and so on; It should be determined how big is too big, in pixels if necessary, and that size should be enforced. Leftiness 19:01, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
What about just calling it "reasonable" We can all agree what is reasonable I would hope. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 19:08, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I really do not think it is necessary to determine exact limits for text size. IMO that is being too strict. As others have said, it's not hard to judge reasonable from unreasonable signatures, so is there any reason to go beyond that? Andrew talk 19:19, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Now, if you are still looking for examples, click here, here, here, here, or here. All of these signatures were fine and in no way overly disruptive. If you want more examples, I am more than happy to find more. Andrew talk 19:28, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm certain everyone has a different opinion of what reasonable is, and I'm certain that one user's opinion of reasonable is another user's opinion of unreasonable; why leave the door open to an unnecessary argument for every case of "reasonable" when we can reach an agreement here and enforce it elsewhere? On top of that, I suspect one signature may be judged reasonable and a different signature, of the same size, even, may be judged unreasonable due to different interpretations of "reasonable." Leftiness 19:24, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
So let us come up with a general definition of "reasonable" without getting too specific. It can be general enough to be left open for a bit of interpretation and leniency, but strict enough to ensure that it isn't just one person's opinion vs someone else's opinion. Andrew talk 19:28, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - How would you leave leniency while being strict enough to not make it opinion v. opinion? I assert that it's impossible. Considering that the major issue for restricting size is to prevent extra space between lines, why not just limit it to any size which doesn't increase the space between lines? With a line drawn for too big, users still have a choice of what size the signature can be; just not so big as to disrupt the line spacing. Leftiness 19:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To be quite blunt, this issue is completely tiny compared to larger problems on the wiki at the current time. So Andrew's signature is larger than a line of text. Has it caused any major issues? No. Has anyone complained/asked him to change it personally? No. Hell, he wasn't even contacted to tell him that his signature was changed. Due to the fact I've had my own signature touched without being informed I put it on my watch page. Nevertheless, Atlandy's idea above is an incredibly great thing in my opinion, and should replace some of the "rules" in the policy, since it makes sense, something that I've scarcely seen as of late in many different areas of the wiki. Not every rule must be enforced to the exactness of its writing, just as actual minor laws are hardly enforced (Jaywalking, etc) since it's a waste of time and there's bigger fish to fry. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 20:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The opinion that policy shouldn't be enforced to-the-letter is disputed. Personally, I don't like the idea of having a full, drawn-out discussion to determine consensus on a case-by-case basis; the only way to avoid drawn-out discussion is to have policies in place and to actually enforce them. That said, I don't think discussing the reformation of a policy is a waste of time. Leftiness 21:42, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What does it matter if a sig is a few pixels higher than normal text? Let's not be so draconian. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:57, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - They're just signatures, nothing to get nit-picky about. Those guidelines are just there so that signature do not interrupt the flow of a discussion. Even if they are a little bit "rule-breaky", so what, its a talk page, it not like we are real formal; we use bad grammar, misspell words, use 133t [email protected]|< all the time, disregard some rules, have absolutely no formal talk at all. If we're going to be picky about how our signature look, why are they allowed at all, just forced to use the wikipedia signature of "--Evil1888", so robot like. We have a lot of better things to do like stopping vandalism, improving the over 4,000 stub pages. But "DEAR GOD, that user's signature is 3 pixels over the limit, it must be fixed cuz I dont have nothing better to do." is just ridiculous. Sometimes we have to look at what we're doing and ask "Why do I edit this anyway?". My personal answer, "To improve the internet in a way that people can get information on what they want, the RuneScape is part of the internet and I know more about RuneScape than anything else." I hope this is taken to heart as we are not here to discuss such trivial matters as the height of how someone shows that they said this, but to help the players of RuneScape to know what is something is, what has happened in the past, and help with something they do not fully understand. Think about that. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Evil. (In fact, I feel like Evil deserves a cookie since he wrote such an excellently written argument. If only I had one to give him... Frown) [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 22:50, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What in God's name are you all supporting? That Andrew's signature be kept at the violating size? He never proposed anything... Chicken7 >talk 02:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think it been implied that the signature changes are unnecessary and that the rules are too strict. Your signature violates the rules FYI. Its taller than standard text size as the "Chicken7" is too big and you have a <sup>. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:46, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
He never proposed anything directly though, it was only implied what his stance on the situation was. Someone has already told me my signature is too high. FYI, I never said I supported Endasil's actions and I personally ould not have changed the height of Andrew's signature. Although, I must comment that there is a problem. What unnerves me is signatures with backgrounds and borders. Chicken7 >talk 08:01, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Split

"Split" meaning that there's a lot of un-sectioned text that could use a friendly edit button.

Personally, I think that this is currently a small, insignificant problem. I believe that's a widely held belief. The question seems to be "Why bother, then?" Consistency and efficiency.

Consistency in enforcing policy, all policy, is important. Our signature policy is a very nice example of a "slippery slope" problem. It's psychological: once it's ok for the signatures to be X pixels tall, someone's going to want his 2 pixels higher. It's also psychological to not notice small changes: once X pixels is ok, 2 pixels higher doesn't seem like a big deal. Later, we end up with signatures that are 10 pixels higher, upside-down, backwards, blinking, scrolling, you name it, and we wonder, "How did that happen?"

Before you take me literally, understand that the above was well past a worst-case scenario. However, the basic idea holds: it's psychological. Since it's psychological, I've proposed deciding on a maximum height for the signatures; everyone's definition of "reasonable" can change, but X pixels stays the same. If we decide on a height of X pixels, and we stick to it, we'll never wake up one day and wonder, "How did that happen?"

Another benefit of deciding on X pixels is efficiency. If everybody, right now, decided to make their signatures the maximum size that they think is "reasonable," we'd have signatures ranging from standard text size to who knows how tall. Where is the line drawn? Maybe Andrew's signature is ok, but is 2 pixels above it ok? Is 4 pixels above Andrew's ok? If we had to decide, I guarantee there would be multiple people upset with the decision because they all think their sizes are "reasonable," and they put all the effort into creating a "reasonably sized" signature; there would be people with signatures larger than that, and people with signatures larger still. My point is that, in deciding what size is "reasonable," having X pixels as a guideline would be an efficient problem-solver. Instead of having a full-blown discussion about whether each individual user's signature is "reasonable," we could refer everyone to the policy.

Finally, I have to direct everyone to RS:SIG: "Signatures on the RuneScape Wiki identify you as a user, and your contributions to the wiki." Since the purpose is to identify you, there's not really anything wrong with using the standard "--Leftiness." It's efficient, it's consistent, it does the job, and it doesn't do anything wrong. That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with personalizing signatures; my point is that the only reason to have personalized signatures is to express yourself, that there are valid, though "nit-picky," reasons to keep them under X pixels tall, and that there's no reason you can't express yourself in under X pixels. Leftiness 01:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What? I don't get it, what are you proposing here? Fruit.Smoothie 01:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

no, he's opposing... I think Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - For those with problems with the text size, you all can go use Lynx! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Lynx is the fastest browser in the world as it renders only text. Fruit.Smoothie 01:30, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I apologize for any misunderstanding. Against the desires of a good amount of people, I'd like to have an amount of pixels "X" that is the maximum height of signatures for reasons of consistency and efficiency, as stated above. I use ELinks sometimes, but it's a bit detrimental to wiki editing despite speed. Leftiness 01:41, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I see, no worries. I would like to remain neutral in this thread anyways. *backs away slowly*. Good day. Fruit.Smoothie 01:47, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. I saw that my signature was pushing the line of whatever text it was on down by a few pixels. It didn't really make any difference, but it kind of annoyed me. So I just added "vertical-align:-3px" to my signature's opening span tag. Now the line of text that my signature finds itself on is where it should be; the extra space was pushed below my signature. That means the only extra space my signature causes is between the last line of my comment and the first line of the next one, and who cares about that? If anything it even helps delineate the page a little. So why don't we just add that to the signature policy? People who have lager-than usual signatures must put that bit of code in their signature to keep it from interfering with the flow of the page. That way everyone's happy, since the only thing I see upsetting anyone is the space it adds above the line. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That would solve the issue with increasing the vertical space between lines, and I think it would certainly allow signatures to be "reasonably" taller than one line of text, but I still think that defining "reasonable" as an X pixel maximum height would be beneficial on account of consistency and efficiency. Leftiness 03:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There hasn't been one oppose. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Because stupidity like this brings about stupid discussions like this. Measuring pixels... My god. Policies, as anyone should know, only apply within the boundaries of common sense. (davelopo) 04:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not entirely sure where the proposal was, so I'm not going to say "Support" for now. I think that the changing of signatures to match policies reeking of instruction creep is over the top. I would like to point out that on my computer, Andrew's signature is barely over the line, causing a difference of about four pixels. Therefore, a pixel-based limit is unrealistic, because this changes depending on the computer and operating system, as well as each user's settings. If a signature is slightly off (which is where I would classify Andrew's, even in the screenshots above) I don't think it really is that big of a deal, and you could certainly have requested that the users change the sigs themselves - editing a talk page is no harder than editing a signature, and the former comes off as nicer. I understand what all of you are trying to do, I just think there's a better way to do it — and one that allows some discussion beforehand. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC) 

I'd just like to add that there are only three signatures on this page which do not cause at least some extra space: Melon's signature, Leftiness' signature, and Fruit.Smoothie's signature. These are all the default signature — a plain text link to the userpage. If we were to rigidly enforce the signature policy, we would be back to default signatures which only allow basic text colour changes. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 17:58, May 9, 2010 (UTC) 
Comment - There could still be pictures, under the right circumstances, that are text-sized. While the pictures in these sigs are not under the right circumstances, these are nice examples of signatures that express the users within my definition of "reasonable," which is one line of text or barely above. Momenator70, Tienjt0, Aka Edge. BicycleCat did a very nice job, and it would be a perfect example of expressing yourself within X pixels, but the picture on the left is too big, I think. Personally, I would have informed the users of changes, but nobody did anything wrong in enforcing the policy without posting to talk pages. Leftiness 19:21, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Now I've heard everything. Are you actually suggesting that I remove one of my pictures just because it might cause the line that my signature's on to be not even a pixel larger than the rest of the lines? That's the most draconian interpretation of a policy I've ever heard, and I don't feel like mutilating my signature because, OHMYGOSH, it makes the line that my signature's on microscopically bigger. Why are we even debating this? There's much bigger things in the Yew Grove that consensus needs to be reached on instead of how big or small a signature should be. Not only that, but I feel that I must point out that the people making such a big deal over signatures in the first place are taking this much too seriously. The signatures weren't causing any problems before all this fuss over them, so why go to all the trouble of regulating signatures with the use of a draconian signature policy? It makes absolutely no sense to me. [2] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 20:22, May 11, 2010 (UTC) P.S.: If you or anyone else takes it upon themselves to regulate my signature without even so much as a message on my talk page, I will take it as a personal offense and will not let the matter rest until something is done either to restore my signature back to its original state before you messed with it or something is done to stop people taking it upon themselves to play signature police.
Comment - I'm suggesting that, in my opinion, the left picture makes your signature too tall. If you feel inclined to oblige, that's your decision. In regards to whether we're taking this too seriously and whether this is a waste of time, see my above argument about this being a slippery slope issue. Also, the cited problems were being caused before somebody posted over them; people just weren't making a fuss because there wasn't a designated location. Leftiness 23:01, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
You can easily undo any edit made to your signature if you check the history of its page.  Tien  21:18, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - All of this is so preposterous that I haven't bothered to comment until now. If anything, a signature should be larger than the text around it. I believe the whole point of a signature is to easily distinguish a user who made a comment? Obviously there are times when a signature crosses the line and should be changed; however, no signature I've seen recently is blatantly large. Why is this policy being so strictly enforced in the first place? Are we trying to make the layout of discussions look perfect or something, with every space between every line beautiful and uniform? We aren't here to create art.  Tien  21:18, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre - Sometimes this place absolutely amazes me. You folks find the most incredibly meaningless things to expend enormous amounts of energy fighting over. :) Qeltar 22:20, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this discussion then rather than making a comment that doesn't pertain to the actual discussion. :) Andrew talk 01:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Notice that my purpose here isn't to force everybody's signature to be 23 pixels, or whatever size it is that normal text is, in order to prevent breakage in the even spacing of the lines. In my personal opinion, I think that the default blue link does just fine, but I have no problem with personal expression; I do think that the valid concerns expressed by those who would enforce the policy to-the-letter should be addressed, not called unimportant or a waste of time. All of that said, my purpose here is to reach consensus on the number X pixels that is "reasonable" and the number Y pixels that is "unreasonable;" where do we draw the line? Per my above argument about this being a slippery slope issue, I believe there will eventually be problems if we don't decide how big "reasonable" is. Whether or not you think those problems are important or not is your opinion. Any other discussion directed at me is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding; I apologize for that, but I'm doing my best to be as clear in my intent as possible. Leftiness 23:01, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

RS:UCS Andrew talk 01:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is absurd. We have a policy called RS:UCS, so lets put it to use. A signature that is only pixels too large is clearly not a problem. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:09, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I think it is a common sense decision to blatantly enforce the policy that signatures should only be one vertical line of text, and I believe that changing it to "Be reasonable" is not a common sense decision as it's a slippery slope. I'm certain that someone else has another idea of what a common sense decision would be in this case. Regardless, RS:UCS involves ignoring policies if it is necessary to benefit the wiki in a specific case. This is not about ignoring a policy; this is about enforcing a policy. RS:UCS also says "Be reasonable," and I believe a definition of "reasonable" is necessary. Leftiness 02:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We need to think, WWMD. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:50, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - RS:AEAE - don't idolize any of the admins in this way. Especially since if you look at Mero's edits, he didn't even contribute much to the site. Christine 02:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In the future, at least use a title description that describes what you are talking about when making a thread. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 09:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, really? If you bothered to read the entire introduction you would realize that the title has everything to do with what I'm talking about. Please don't bother commenting if you have nothing to add to the discussion. Andrew talk 22:01, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Zammy forbid you read the entire thing! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:58, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
So if you read "So this is how we occupy our time?" would you know what I'm talking about?...No. What I was politely suggesting next time is to make it something like "Signature Policy". No need to get all upset at me just because you need to rant about how somebody changed your signature. In their defence, all I'm just going to say is that they had a good-intention. And I just going to say there should be a clear-cut definition length x width policy, but you would probably disagree with me anyways...and thanks for adding nothing to the conversation Evil1888. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 10:21, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
I could say the same thing about "Moby Dick", and we talking about the x height. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 10:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The signature policy has been changed to state that "Signatures should be a reasonable size with limited superfluous text and pictures. Any signature that does not fit this criteria may be changed". Users should use common sense to determine what is a reasonable size and as much as possible, ensure that their signature is not overly disruptive. C.ChiamTalk 04:12, May 28, 2010 (UTC)