Forum:Vote: Increase the signature image limit to 25px

	This forum page has been archived.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

This poll has been closed pending further discussion. Please use the Wiki discussion forums to dicuss this.

Hello there, TwoBearsHigh-Fiving here with a proposal. So to avoid clutter, I'll make this as short and sweet as possible. Though I find it a trivial manner, when I was made to change my signature today, I couldn't help but be bothered by it. It almost looks silly to place after a large body of text. (This was my signature before) - (This is it now.) The first image is in current violation of our policy at 25 pixels. However, is this really obstructive? That's why we can put it to a simple vote, should we amend the policy and increase the cap to 25px? Vote yes or no below. Thank you all. -- 07:45, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

The Vote

Poll finished on 12:45 am October 27, 2012 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support: # {{yes}} ~~~~ # {{no}} ~~~~ Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. Honestly, we don't need a numbered limit to begin with. I don't see why we need some people to keep spitting out these ridiculous policies. We're administrators, and our judgement should be trusted as such. It is pretty obvious when something really is obstructive and needs to be dealt with, and when a user is simply looking for a way to get attention. Absolute yes. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 07:49, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. It was pointless to have a limit in the first place. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 08:41, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. I don't think mine has changed but could it get any smaller ^{"Editing With Triple S Technology!"} 7:46, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
4. While it is important to set a quantitative standard, I have observed that the current 20px is way too small. This sounds good. --Skire (talk) 14:12, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. The image I had before did not work at 20px but my new one is 16. I am happy with my new sig but as I don't see any harm in a 25px sig I vote yes. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 14:22, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
6. I think we do need a limit, just not 20px. --C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 14:23, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. I think this is a grand idea, as my sig looks like a blob of blue. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 14:30, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. 25px seems to be the perfect size, it isn't obstructive, most people who had signatures before the policy were at about 25px anyway, and they were never deemed as obstructive before. - CC 14:33, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
9. As you will see in a moment, I defaulted my signature after being told it was in violation. At first I did change the size of my picture to be within the rules, and I felt it just didn't feel right. Therefore, I'm all for the pixel size being increased. -- The Old World Relics (talk) 14:57, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
10. I saw a case in which a limit number was necessary. The guy's signature was quite literally the size of your standard banner ad. Limits are necessary. However, the current limit is too strict in my opinion. Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 19:43, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
11. Xa3talkContributions21:13, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

No

1. I believe 25px is still too low a value and wouldn't really make any difference. If we're going to change this rule, I'd rather a value between 30-35 pixels. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

Comments

While I like the idea of this in general, it would've been more productive in my opinion to set up a formal forum discussion beforehand so the issue could be open to more than two options (25px or the status quo (20px)), as it is also written in policies:

But due to the nature of this matter, I can somewhat understand going straight to a vote, but I yet feel that a discussion should've been held first. --Skire (talk) 14:21, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, my current dwarfed signature literally strains my eyes to try and picture properly. I mean this in all seriousness. I imagine others with lesser vision might have the same problem with other sigs, respectively. I can't speak for others, but to me this would be considered another reason to get straight to the point in my eyes. No pun intended.-- 19:25, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons this should first be discussed is precisely to properly define the maximum height to be put to vote instead of pulling a random number out of tin air. 25px of height limit for instance instance would still leave 2 Bears' proposed signature against the rules. Respectively, how it used to be (25px), how it should be now (x20px), how it is now (20px), and how it would be if this motion passed (x25px):

Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 14:56, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

I would instead suggest not defining it by pixel count "Images used in Signatures should be kept small such that they do no interrupt the flow of text on the page". Same effect, no pixel counting. Agent c (talk) 15:42, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

20 px comes out of CSS line-height property (typically, 20-21 px for "regular" text), anything taller, will disrupt text flow. --Theodorico (talk) 18:28, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I need to add the word "Significantly" in there... Unless I deliberately go looking for it, I do not see any disruption in signatures like Bears' or Leons. I think in the grand scheme of things, this really isn't a significant thing at all, and there are more important things that we could be dealing with in order to make sure this wiki seems a welcoming and enjoyable place. This reminds me of those "hem monitors" we see in American 60s and 70s sticoms that target the female characters wearing miniskirts to see if they are too short. Agent c (talk) 19:20, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

In consultation with Bears, I'd like to propose the following:

That the policy on signature images should be deleted and replaced with:

Users who have a signature that significantly disrupts the readability of a page when used may be requested to resize or change their signature

Ultimately, those who are currently a handful of pixels or so over would have nothing to worry about; but if someone tries to do something ridicilously oversized we'd still have the power to act. Agent c (talk) 19:40, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 19:40, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. -- 19:42, October 27, 2012 (UTC) I am in full support of this.
3. I prefer this counter-proposal.-- 19:50, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Sounds like a plan! ^{"Hail to the Pigeon!"} 19:59, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. This term of action would also result in the return of my signature, therefor, I'm all for it. -- The Old World Relics (talk) 20:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
6. Makes sense, lets make it happen. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 21:09, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. This is better, in my opinion. After all, we should have signatures, not customised wallpapers. --C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 21:10, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

No

1. Everyone should have the same rules, we cant pick and mix. Also, wouldnt this be a tad subjective?- JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:43, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
2. I have voiced my concerns in the comments below and the above proposal is much more preferable. I agree to Jasper too. --Skire (talk) 21:45, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Define "significant" please. People have different degrees of perceiving something as "obstructive" or "disruptive" of the text. Even if it seems unreasonable to you, it could be indeed reasonable to someone else. There is no quantitative measure. You cannot possibly say that someone is wrong when they believe an image is being disruptive of text readability simply because you don't feel it is. With a numerical limit, there is no disputation and it is a lot more efficient. --Skire (talk) 20:59, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

I guess I would say in most circumstances, anything over 35px is unreasonable.-- 21:04, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more efficient in once sense... But rather than focus on the real issue this wiki faces we're here wasting everyones time talking about a line in a talk or forum page maybe being increased an almost inperceptile amount; We're also spending time enforcing a rule in situations where it doesn't actually help the wiki - instead we're talking about harassing a new user worrying over 5 pixels, making us seem over burecratic and unfriendly.

As for a definition, I think this is one where common sense would win the day. If soemone has a "Banner ad", sure, go right ahead. If someone is doing something the size of Hawk's sig on Limmies' page (which I thought was a marvelous piece of satire), sure again go ahead and do something. But something the size of Bears' or Leons? Come on, don't we have things we could be more efficiently spending our time on? Lets end this nonsense and go do something more productive. Agent c (talk) 21:06, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

The policy is there for a reason and now there seems to be enough agreement that it should be amended. All policies are to be followed and this one has been ignored, and so we must change it to what benefits and satisfies the community. So it is clearly important enough for so many people to vote on it. BTW, my original question wasn't answered. --Skire (talk) 21:09, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was kinda buried in there, just use common sense and look at if its causing disruption. A few extra pixels does not cause disruption. A banner ad or thumb image does. The question is more on the effect when used, not the actual size. Agent c (talk) 21:14, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to provide a few examples:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla a odio nisl. Aliquam vestibulum odio in libero dapibus varius. Aenean sit amet mollis leo. Vivamus sodales turpis ut augue tincidunt fringilla. Nullam vitae cursus turpis. Donec tempor felis in nisi congue faucibus. Vivamus vel odio turpis, eget aliquam lacus. Suspendisse sagittis vehicula volutpat. Suspendisse lobortis euismod consectetur. 21:21, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Mauris pharetra bibendum urna eget fermentum. Donec aliquam tempus pretium. Nam pharetra risus sit amet sapien pellentesque vehicula. Cras volutpat accumsan est tristique convallis. Pellentesque at justo luctus dui viverra ullamcorper. Pellentesque lacinia consequat ultricies. Quisque vitae nisi nunc, et blandit purus. Aliquam fermentum feugiat est, ac dapibus libero pellentesque eu. 21:21, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Now example 1 may not typically be perceived as disruptive of readability. But there is still a visible difference - the line spacing between the second to last and last line is slightly greater than the spacing between all other lines. This could indeed by perceived as disruptive by someone, and who is to say that it is not, for them? Example 2 may typically be perceived as disruptive of readability, but nevertheless someone can indeed not be bothered by it at all, as the text is yet easily readable. Now this may be some reductio ad absurdum, but I feel it illustrates my concerns well. There is no solid definition and we reply on perception, which we all know varies. --Skire (talk) 21:21, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but ultimately which serves the wiki better... Us running around like hem monitors freaking out over a few pixels extending a line, or the common sense approach, in which I would expect the first to be ignored, and the second to be requested to change. Agent c (talk) 21:25, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Right, and I understand fully what you are getting at. It is indeed expected that all users will be reasonable about it, but will that really be the case? If we had a quantitative limit, then that would prevent any arguments over individual perception. --Skire (talk) 21:29, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Can I ask why we are administrators if our judgement isn't to be trusted at all? I'm tired of being here just to be villainized and to bow down to the opinions of other users. I'm here to do my job. It's that simple. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 21:41, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with administrators' judgement, but rather with how their judgement is met by other users... --Skire (talk) 21:42, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

As administrators, we are to keep order, are we not? If we can't trust each other's judgement and ability, then we shouldn't be administrators in the first place. We're trusted members of the community and we have been given the power to mediate in such situations. If a user wants to play pity-me-please and argue until he gets his way, that's where we come in. If they keep causing a problem, then a compromise can be reached, or it's a free trip to ban island. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 21:46, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a very valid point you raise there, but it supports why I believe that a numerical limit would be much more efficient and cause less general conflict. It is definitive and final, not up to varying perceptions. --Skire (talk) 21:50, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think the very fact we're having this conversation over a number suggests that isn't going to be the case. Agent c (talk) 21:57, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily at all. The previous limit (20px) limit was established a very long time ago, before most of the current administration or active community was here. This explains the conflict. Now this is to establish an ideal that is accepted by the entire current community. --Skire (talk) 22:01, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am closing this poll due to the fact that it was brought here without proper discussion and judging by the large amount of discussion here there is much that needs to be worked out. Please reopen this in the Wiki discussion section of thee forum. Thanks.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:04, October 27, 2012 (UTC)