Forum:Signature Image Sizes Discussion

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Signature Image Sizes Discussion

After the break down of the Signature Image Size Vote, it was decided that we should move to a discussion before continuing with a vote. For those of you who are unaware of the current rules, they were decided by The Vault in this 2010 Forum. The community at that time agreed on a maximum width of 40 pixels, whilst a Bureaucrat decided that a maximum height of 20 pixels should also be enforced.

I would like to stress, as the current rules, they are in force and should be followed until the conclusion of this process.

However, as we've become aware of in recent weeks, these rules have not been enforced in recent times, with admins being surprised to learn that they are in breach of these guidelines, and a recent crackdown being taken the wrong way in some circles.

As such, the question becomes what to do about the rules. From the comments I've seen, the various possibilities seem to be as follows:

1. Enforce the rules as they are

• Advantages: The rules are clear and unambiguous, and not open to interpretation, whilst preventing signatures that disrupt pages.
• Disadvantages: The limits are arbitrary, especially in the image length.

2. Abolish the rule completely

• Advantages: People have freedom to express themselves in their signatures, without arbitrary limits. Non enforcement of the rules to date has not resulted in any major difficulties.
• Disadvatanges: There remains the possibility of someone choosing to create a signature image that disrupts the flow of a page.

3. Expand the image size limits

• Advantages: Keeps the rule against disruptive images in a fair and unambiguous way, whilst allowing more freedom
• Disadvantages: Image size limits remain arbitrary, the current height was selected as it being similar to the character height of letters

4. Transform the rule to an effects based rule against Disruptive image sizes with no fixed limit.

• Advantages: Rather than pixel-counting, only disruptive images are banned. No fixed limit on size allows more creativity.
• Disadvantages: Can be seen as subjective.

5. Ban image signatures

• Advantages: Well, you can't deny that it doesn't solve the problem and puts everyone on a level playing field.
• Disadvantages: Well, I really don't think I need to list why this isn't the most optimal idea.

So, what are peoples thoughts? Agent c (talk) 00:06, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments

I would propose a maximum size of 35px. Although I see it trivial to set a limit on it, there would need to be something. Otherwise, as Chad said, people may do banners. There really is no reason for a signature any bigger than 35px.-- 05:51, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Ryan. 35px is good. Many users have the pictures edited in a way that looks good in a certain size; if it's smaller, it loses focus/quality/contrast, etc. I think we shouldn't have ridiculously large images that polluted the talkpages and forums, but 20px is too small. Some more pxs wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. --C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 06:02, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I have been playing with signatures quite a bit, and I've come to an understanding that anything between 35-50 pixels is a pretty good size without imposing too much on the layout of text. 50 and under merely pushes the sentence above up a little more. Anything larger than 50 usually jumbles the sentences. So I'd say that should be our limit. I'd say give even more lee-way, expressing that you can create signatures a few pixels larger in height as long as the community generally approves and no one complains about it. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:54, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

My personal view is that is much of a muchness, and an unwelcome distraction. Gentlemen (and Gentlewomen), we have an amazing opportunity here. The Vault for the most part seems to have gone dark, with daily edits there measuring in the low dozens, they seem to be more or less resting on their laurels. We can use this time to work on some real improvements to Nukapedia and ensure that on the day Fallout 4 is announced we are the premier source for everything Fallout; or we can spend our time having petty discussions and counting image pixels. My proposal is simple, we stop worrying about it until there's something clearly disruptive. If a few lines on a talk page or a forum page are put out a bit... Who Cares? Lets instead react when there is disruption only, and spend the time we'd spend enforcing or talking about a limit more productively.
These are not to mention how petty and unwelcoming a warning for such a minor thing can seem to a new user. Agent c (talk) 11:54, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming a false dichotomy here, that defining and discussing rules takes away time from editing. That's not true at all, and all it takes is a look at the mainspace edit count during polls. I just did this with the admin's dashboard statistic counter, and I can say with certain that there's NO impact nor correlation between open polls, votes, or discussions and mainspace edits. So this shouldn't be use as an argument for half-measures and leaving loose ends. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 12:50, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Limmie, its because the average editor either doesn't give a damn, or isn't aware of the discussion. However, as the "power users" if you like, we could be spending this time coming up with real improvements that actually will improve this wiki, beyond just edits. Instead, we're looking petty bickering over a few pixels, in an issue that the majority don't care and aren't going to notice either way. I'd rather discuss something of substance, like how are we going to ensure that this wiki is the one that people come to when F4 is announced. Agent c (talk) 13:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Come on C, we're not ADD kittens here, we're more than capable of discussing and thinking about more than one subject at a time :) If we're not discussing and elaborating a groundbreaking super-idea right now is because we haven't come up with one yet, not because all our braincells are busy with the pixel issue. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 13:09, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

---

I'll make an example for the varying height on my signature picture limited to 20, 30, and subsequently on increments of 5 until 50:

"Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (20) "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (30) "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (35) "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (40) "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (45) "Don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along with other humans is a special case of it. Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for dickery (as this itself would be an instance of such), it is still a bad idea to be a dick. So don't be one. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. (50)

It's clear to me that 30px is already enough to provide proper resolution to the picture without barely altering the line spacing, and after 35px the picture starts to impact the text lines too much. Hence my recommendation for the limit to be set to 30-35px. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 13:05, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

If a pixel-based limit is to be applied, I agree that 30-35 pixels seems reasonable. In the event that a decision cannot be reached on that front, I suggest a modification of the "not disruptive" idea, wherein guidelines are provided, rather than explicit rules. Something along the lines of, "As long as avatars are not deemed disruptive, they may be used in signatures. Here are some guidelines for non-disruptive avatars: under 35 pixels..."

Cheers,
18:41, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

30px is enough IMO. It raises the current maximum considerably and I believe most people should easily have an image viewable and clear at this size. --Skire (talk) 19:05, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the people here, after examination, 30-35 px seems like a reasonable size, we don't need it any bigger than that. 30 doesn't disrupt the flow of the page, and 35 does it, but not notice-ably. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 22:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

---

The fora and wiki itself, outside of general discussion and chat, is considered a formal environment, especially when dealing with votes and serious discussion. The extreme of this is that signature images are simply not necessary, they are simple quirks of character which do not perform any function within the site other than aesthetic pleasure of the party involved.

It is also by this that I find altering the current policy, as set to 20 pixel limitations on height so the signature images do not adversely affect cascading conversations, paragraphs or sentence structure, both pointless and regressive. Placing the format and readability of the fora and talk pages on a lesser level to the optional signature image will be counter-productive, and by increasing the limit of the height this will be causing issues for format and readability.

I of course do not see a small increase as detrimental, as seen above with Limmie's comparative signature images 30 pixels seems to be the limit at which paragraph structure is still coherent (bearing in mind not all users will have text size at the same level as everyone else nor will everyone be using the same device to access to the site). The other issue with this though is that the signature image would be bold enough to cause irritation to a reader, the larger the image the more annoyance for someone to read through the text without consistently being distracted by it.

As a counter-balance to any increase, regardless of size, it is my suggestion that users add their signature on a new line other than adding it to the end of a paragraph or sentence. As exampled here, this stops any issues with readability and format (but the issue of distraction and annoyance to a reader will still remain at larger image sizes); size of the signature set to 30 pixels for example purposes:

Gases are made up of particles which move with rapid random motion. The size of the particles and any intermolecular forces can be ignored unless the particles are close together at high pressure or at low temperature. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt}

Gases are made up of particles which move with rapid random motion. The size of the particles and any intermolecular forces can be ignored unless the particles are close together at high pressure or at low temperature.

Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt}

In my view the, 20 pixel limit is fine as is, it keeps the fora and talk pages uniform and concise. This is an unnecessary change to an otherwise working system. A 5 pixel increase would be negligible, yes, but any further increases will be bastardising content over personal taste. Simply put: If you want large, fancy images adorning your name and talk page links rather than focusing on content, then you're on the wrong site, social networking is that way. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 21:53, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

x30px would be ok. The image is reasonable visible then, with just a small distortion to the line above/below it. Jspoel 22:02, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

I completly agree with J on this one. x30px leaves the picture very visual and allows for little to no distortion of the text. -- The Old World Relics (talk) 22:21, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

I have made it quite clear in my dealings here that I feel bureaucracy to be a very important aspect of any large community. To an extent. This, however, is not one of those cases where I feel bureaucracy to be appropriate. The simple fact is, signatures are merely for fun. They're only used for flavour material, and it is very rarely when someone actually abuses this privilege and creates an eyesore. In my opinion, I say leave the guidelines in place, but don't enforce them as actual policies. If a signature becomes a problem, it will be reported, and will be dealt with by the Sysops. It's as simple as that. Because really, think about it: No one has been paying those guidelines any attention and we have never had an issue with signatures that I know of since before I even became a registered user. So in the 2 years that I've been coming here, I have never seen an incident involving questionable sized signatures. I'd understand if this issue was brought up because of an influx of questionable signatures. But there has been no such thing in at least the 2 years that I've been here. (Aside from minor cases, such as when I first created my signature and I was having trouble determining a proper size for it.) So why in the world are we cracking down so hard on such a minor feature on this wiki when it has almost never been a problem? I say just leave things as they've been. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:32, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I think it's better that we adjust our policies to reflect our expectations of maximum signature size. If something's in policies it needs to be followed, and so why not simply raise the limit? As I've said before 30px seems very reasonable. --Skire (talk) 22:36, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Not everything needs policies. Personally, I feel if we are going to restrict how we can personalize our messages, we might as well and switch to the Message Wall where everything is generic. :P Signatures just aren't a big deal. And even if they were, most of the user-page templates we use are much more cumbersome than any signature you'll find here. (EX: Notice templates/Talk Templates) ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:45, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Signature images should only appear below posts so unless they are ridiculously large they can't really hurt any post. That being said, only a troll would go out of their way to test the policy and see how big they can make one.

• I am in favor of allowing sig image to be larger than 20px. 25 sounds reasonable, 50px is even in the outer bubble of logic..

I hate to tell others what they can and can not do in an effort to express them selves.

I voted yes to 25px even though I was already well with in compliance with my 16x16 image but when I consider all these policy changes I try to think about more than what "I personally" want or might feel in need of. So I am torn. I hate that " Don't be a Dick" rule because it is too subjective "and insulting in it's wording" but at times leaving the door wide open can lead to abuse.

• How would I vote today? I don't like my choices, but I guess I'd go with the discretion of our admins to decide how big is way too big. So I now would vote for the counter proposal and give folks the benefit of the doubt to consider others feeling before making some HUGE ASS sig image.

• In the End the admins can deal with clear attempts to be a net troll.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 22:54, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know what's so bad about 20px. It's the best since it doesn't alter the lines. If your current pic doesn't look good on that resolution then just choose another... I agree with Gothic Neko, the forums are supposedly to be formal environments, and the fact that there are pictures on the signatures is already enough of a luxury, I don't see why ask for more. BADTFL Agent (talk) 22:59, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

A very common misconception for most wikis. Nukapedia isn't some spartan environment where everyone is expected to be formal to each other. We are a community. Yeah, our main priority is in being an encyclopedia for the subject we revolve around. But at the same time, we embrace a social setting where every user is allowed to express themselves in the way they see fit. GarouxBloodline

This is where chat, blogs and the general discussion board comes in place for the informal, social setting. It is when the two clash, as such with the informalities of signature images (or, rather, large images) within formal areas, I have a severe issue. As a prime rule, this is to be an encyclopaedia of Fallout, and related materials, the social aspect should never be placed higher than the content of the site. While I see no issue with social sides of the wiki, and I encourage it where applicable, I do see issue with socialising serious discussion and content. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 23:15, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely following your logic. The fora is about 90% informal, as well, along with signatures never affecting the informational side to Nukapedia. (Article pages/Policies/Guidelines.) GarouxBloodline

Though areas, such as general discussion and off-topic, would be intended as informal, the polls and wiki discussion are typically formal environments. Though there are users who do not perceive it as such, and typically do not follow suit with the formalities of the topic or discussion, I can hardly see why people could or would find an informal conversation over serious policies or site issues.

The Poll and Applications forum is specifically formal, as stated in the header:

“This forum is for formal votes”

And, considering the nature of voting, signatures are necessary within that forum. Regardless of just how far informalities go in other areas, signatures are used within formal areas as well, and, as stated, content of the site must supersede social aspects. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 23:34, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

That's the issue with me though: No one has ever had a problem with this before, and no one has ever considered signatures inappropriate to use in forums. The only reason the original guidelines were put into place was because a few trolls were using the thumb option for images used in their signatures. If something as minor as a signature actually grates on people's nerves because they don't feel it's appropriate in certain settings, then I'm not sure what to tell you except that you shouldn't let such minor things actually annoy you. GarouxBloodline

I do not see an issue with signature images over all, I see an issue with the policy being discussed in manner which grants more luxuries and informalities. It's just not necessary, and the proposed changes encroaches upon the content side of the wiki. Keep the signature images, yes, but the policy itself doesn't need any more leeway. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 23:52, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

What policies? GarouxBloodline

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The one currently being discussed: "Avoid using obtrusive signatures" Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline#Talk_and_forum_pages Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:08, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Not a policy. Another aspect of this policing that has me a tad upset: The fact that mere guidelines are being enforced as policies, with even threats of banning enacted. GarouxBloodline

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (In reference to the previous posts, not the one above) Can we take the I-hate-Wikia-because-it's-a-social-network-site-but-I-didn't-go-to-the-Vault-when-given-the-chance bandwagon somewhere else? This is about signature images. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 23:36, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

What are you referencing to? GarouxBloodline

Proposals

I'm slightly worried that we're deviating from the purpose of this forum. So I'd like to ask everyone concerned if they could list their proposal below this. Keep it short, just use simple quantitative data, or, if you feel another action should be taken, list it. That way, we can take what seems to be the general consensus and make some proposals.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (talk) 04:08, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

• I propose that the signature image size not exceed 35px, however, should one exceed that limit, but prove not to be an impetus, an admin can use their discretion when judging it.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (talk) 04:08, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 04:14, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
• I propose that the height and width restrictions should be abolished, with the effect instead being monitored. As a guideline we can suggest that 35px be the recommended maximum height for images, and no guidance be given on the width. Agent c (talk) 21:45, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should retain and not abolish this rule but adjust it. I propose the following changes:

“Avoid using obtrusive signatures: Custom signatures which are obtrusive, annoying or unnecessarily large should be avoided as they detract from the purpose of talk and forum pages. A signature should not affect surrounding text to a great extent. Only one image is allowed per signature, and it must be no larger than 30 pixels in width and 35 pixels in height. Using the "thumb" or "frame" options is forbidden.”

Removing this altogether will leave open the possibility for someone to have an excessively sized signature that disrupts the page to have one and without a rule in place to prevent this we will have to address this yet again. 35 by 35 seems to cover everyone pretty well. As long as everyone who uses a signature sets theirs to the agreed upon specs, I don't see why this would even be a problem. Kinda reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer repaints the lanes to make them wider.--Kingclyde (talk) 02:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of this, except that I'd change the word 'avoid' to something more forceful. If we're going to enforce this as a policy, we shouldn't leave room for it to be interpreted as voluntary. Otherwise, I'm with it 100%. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 17:24, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

New wording

“Do not use obtrusive signatures: Custom signatures which are obtrusive, annoying or unnecessarily large should be avoided as they detract from the purpose of talk and forum pages. A signature should not affect surrounding text to a great extent. Only one image is allowed per signature, and it must be no larger than 30 pixels in width and 35 pixels in height. Using the "thumb" or "frame" options is forbidden.”

Is everyone good with this wording and sizing? The sizing fits everyone's arguments above. If everyone is good I will make the changes accordingly to the policy.--Kingclyde (talk) 02:20, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Clyde.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 02:43, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

An all around thumbs up from myself as well. -- The Old World Relics (talk) 02:49, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  Is the length really an issue? Your wording would default GhostAvatars talkpage image because of its length, right? I'd say (x)35px and leave it at that. If it gets really lengthy we can always say it's obtrusive. Jspoel 02:53, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to have it in there to cover ourselves in the future in case there is one that gets out of hand. That way we can say, "look here, see the rule about length".--Kingclyde (talk) 03:20, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Limit on the number of images per signature

The rules also prohibit more than one image per signature, which include the popular "talk baloons". I don't really see what's wrong with those, so may I assume there's a consensus to remove that limitation as well? Or at least increase it to "at most two"?
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:51, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with two being the maximum. --Skire (talk) 21:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I thought we already closed this forum with the creation of the new rule? I think if anything, if you want to modify it yet again you need to start another topic.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:04, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

The rule was never implemented, it is still pending a vote for 2 months now.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 23:23, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

We permit text pretty much as long as you like, and what is a letter but an image. The restriction serves no purpose, just remove it. Agent c (talk) 22:20, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I could agree with removing it outright as well.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 23:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Now "quote Clyde"

• Or just try to have some fun. Eventually, to many rules will get in every ones way.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here."

This discussion isn't to add a new rule Saint, it's to remove one.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:32, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

I too am also fine with complete removal, or replacement with a maximum of two images. Either way, the current policy is extraneous anyway, since I can't recall anyone in recent history paying attention to or violating it. Its obscurity and ineffectiveness is sufficient cause for its deletion from policy. --Skire (talk) 01:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)