Following the previous discussion on the subject, this is a vote to reword the current policy regarding the maximum allowed sizes of the signature images.
The current guidelines read as follows:
- 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 40 pixels in width and 20 pixels in height. Using the "thumb" or "frame" options is forbidden.”
If this vote passes, then the paragraph will instead read:
- A signature should not affect surrounding text to a great extent. The compounded images must be no larger than 40 pixels in width and 35 pixels in height. Using the "thumb" or "frame" options is forbidden.”
Specifically, the maximum pixel height for signature images will be increased from 20 to 35, and the restriction on the number of images per signature will be removed.
Please vote 
if you support the change, and 
if you are against it.
Vote
| ||||
Yes
Agent c (talk) 01:04, January 13, 2013 (UTC) I may not be in the "Custom signature" bandwagon, but I have no complaints with those who do...- I see no harm. So, OK by me SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here."
- From the discussion before the changed dimensions showed no noticeable difference between line spacing than they do now. Great Mara (talk) 01:46, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- 03:00, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Anon Leon's first comments below is what swung me. He raises valid points I can get behind. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 04:58, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I see nothing wrong with this so I think it's fine... --The Nuclear King (talk) 05:43, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Excluded votes
No
- See comment. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:04, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- This is an unnecessary change to an otherwise working system. Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 01:09, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to change this. From what I've seen its fine the way it is. Why change it? Richie9999 (talk) 01:18, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- <troll mode>So, 256 images in the sig will be permitted? Hmm... i guess i'll make myself a new sig! And before you ask - yes, i'll place them vertically.</troll mode> --Theodorico (talk) 09:49, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Excluded votes
Neutral
- Excluded votes
-
I'm okay with increasing the height, but I'd prefer this change if the rule about multiple images remained the same. 02:33, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
It's fine how it is. Just because you feel you need to over pretty your sig doesn't mean you should do so at the expense of the look of the wiki itself. If your sig is messing with how text lines up that's a bad thing. Pretty up your user page all you like with your crazy images, but you dont need a huge one in your sig. It's not like we're limiting your customisation all that much, you can still change the font, words, colour ect, but you dont need some huge "look at how special I am" image in it that messes up the page's text. We decreased it for a reason anyway. If it's too small to see in the these dimensions then I'm sorry but you'll have to ditch it, why you'd want an image that complex in something as simple a as a sig is beyond me, a sig is ment to be a quick identification of the user. We dont need to increase the image size cap every time someone gets sad because you cant see thier huge images well. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"
01:05, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Given the number of people (and prominence of some of them) that were in violation of the rule, I'm convinced the old rule wasn't really working at all. Agent c (talk) 01:49, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- We fail to enforce the rule properly so we should change the rule? Why dont we just start enforcing the rule instead?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 03:03, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- We tried that Jasp. They just simply refused. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 03:06, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not so much that Jasper as simply that the fact there were so many non-compliant sigpics indicated a desire from the part of many people to have a bigger sigpic, and the fact that said went undetected for so long that said bigger pictures weren't disruptive in the first place.
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 03:44, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not so much that Jasper as simply that the fact there were so many non-compliant sigpics indicated a desire from the part of many people to have a bigger sigpic, and the fact that said went undetected for so long that said bigger pictures weren't disruptive in the first place.
- @Rel Treat it like any other rule and ban them. Or at the very least delete their sig data until they accept the rules. Since when does people refusing to obey the rules mean we stop enforcing them? That's a poor system. If I have a 50px image in my sig and the rule is againt that I should have to change it or face the consequences. If every time someone added strategy to an article they just said "but I want it there" we wouldnt change the rules about that. People not liking the rules is a good reason for rethinking them, but not for ignoring the ones we already have.
- @Lim teh fact that we made thsi rule to start with was because they are disruptive, just not always. Not all sigs with a certain sized image are disruptive, but some are. We cant work on a by-user system, stopping some users from having them while allowing other users to have them, so having a rule that outright bans them over the certain size is the only fair option. Even if we move up to this size do you think thee arnt ones of 40px in height which would scate around the 35px rule because they dont all seem disruptive? So would that mean we move teh cap up to 40? We had the rule and it should have been enforced. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 03:45, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- We haven't stopped enforcing them, or at least I haven't. All it takes is a look at my TP archives an you'll see there was quite a fuss on my plate for it, in fact. I've also made a mainpaged blogpost pointing that rule out and and even created a template warning for it. It immediately resulted in the haphazard creation of a proposal to increase the limit, which quickly received overwhelming support.
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 03:56, January 13, 2013 (UTC) - EDIT: The issue with the sigpic height is that they deform the linespace around it, so yeah, every picture of a certain size are equally disruptive.
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 04:01, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- We haven't stopped enforcing them, or at least I haven't. All it takes is a look at my TP archives an you'll see there was quite a fuss on my plate for it, in fact. I've also made a mainpaged blogpost pointing that rule out and and even created a template warning for it. It immediately resulted in the haphazard creation of a proposal to increase the limit, which quickly received overwhelming support.
- @Rel Treat it like any other rule and ban them. Or at the very least delete their sig data until they accept the rules. Since when does people refusing to obey the rules mean we stop enforcing them? That's a poor system. If I have a 50px image in my sig and the rule is againt that I should have to change it or face the consequences. If every time someone added strategy to an article they just said "but I want it there" we wouldnt change the rules about that. People not liking the rules is a good reason for rethinking them, but not for ignoring the ones we already have.
- Perfectly understandable logic, and an admirable trait to stick to your guns so well. The only real issue I'm seeing here is that we shouldn't really be comparing an optional social feature with that of our professional life blood - the article pages. Allowing crap like strategy and speculation into our article pages will weaken our professionalism and stability, but allowing custom sigs past a miniscule limit will deal no harm whatsoever, aside from moving part of the text slightly more down. (Which never affects the professional side of the wiki. Only the social side.) The real reason this guideline was added in the first place was because of trolls using the thumb option in their sigs, anyways. 67.187.96.246 03:57, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that examples of the size maximums are posted amidst some text so we can have a visual and a better understanding of what we're looking at (literally)? --Skire (talk) 02:29, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- The are examples in the linked discussion page, but please feel free to post them here as well if you feel it's necessary.
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 02:50, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
@Stars and Stripes: You do realize your current signature is in violation of the guidelines due to it containing two images, and will continue to be so if this change doesn't pass right? :P
Limmiegirl 
Talk! ♪ 02:50, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Ummmm...nevermind then, I will now go into hiding and hang my head in shame. 03:00, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, well to get a reference here, the following is 35px in height (stealing Limmie's sig image) with indentation and more text immediately following...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus condimentum dignissim purus, nec iaculis odio imperdiet at. Nam luctus consectetur diam, in egestas ligula tincidunt et. Sed eget magna vestibulum leo convallis porta ut eu augue.
- Morbi sed purus nisi, vehicula hendrerit eros. Praesent tristique, lacus sed sollicitudin consequat, neque urna consequat dui, sit amet lacinia nunc diam in arcu.
"Quote" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus condimentum dignissim purus, nec iaculis odio imperdiet at. Nam luctus consectetur diam, in egestas ligula tincidunt et. Sed eget magna vestibulum leo convallis porta ut eu augue.
- Morbi sed purus nisi, vehicula hendrerit eros. Praesent tristique, lacus sed sollicitudin consequat, neque urna consequat dui, sit amet lacinia nunc diam in arcu. "End Quote"
No matter the language glitch, I know enough old world tongue to cipher Limmy G's idea.. I get it..
Still, The new proposed size is not intrusive. If it hurts no one why not let it slide?
SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 04:02, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Just a note, the word salad above wasn't mine, Skire just borrowed my picture to demonstrate the new size :P
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 05:56, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
"Quote" :Just a note, the word salad above wasn't mine, Skire just borrowed my picture to demonstrate the new size :P
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ " End Quote"
There you go, the example is not intrusive. Signatures belong at the bottom of pages and unless somebody get's stupid offensive.. Well there should be no problem. They can't disrupt a page because their function is to sign off the page.
SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:35, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Another thing struck me in the proposed wording - Does it really sets 40px width limit for the whole signature (including text), or it's just me over-nitpicking? --Theodorico (talk) 12:52, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworded to disambiguate the issue. Nevertheless 256 images placed vertically would still be unpermitted due to the first sentence provision "A signature should not affect surrounding text to a great extent".
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 14:32, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Ultimately guys, before voting no, ask yourselves "What are the rules likely to achieve".
- As we've seen from earlier in this thread... The old rules turn unsuspecting people into rule breakers. In exchange, when compared to the other wording, we get an almost imperceptible "improvement" in text flow.
- With the new wording, things are more relaxed, and less likely to trip people up. Abuse that effects text flow significantly is still dealt with - and that includes multiple images stacked vertically.
Shouldn't that make the right decison clear? Agent c (talk) 14:47, January 13, 2013 (UTC)