SmashWiki talk:Sign your comments: Difference between revisions
ScoreCounter (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
(This idea is a-useless) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
I do '''Support''', but I will comment : what about people who are unsure of the alternative names/numbers, and -->MB104, it's more of a matter of saying, "Look, a... person...? wrote... this...?" whilst skimming a page, and the fact that yellow on white is a computing cardinal sin in a way in the first place. (Wow... I'm overdramatic...) [[User:ScoreCounter|ScoreCounter]] ([[User talk:ScoreCounter|talk]]) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (EDT) | I do '''Support''', but I will comment : what about people who are unsure of the alternative names/numbers, and -->MB104, it's more of a matter of saying, "Look, a... person...? wrote... this...?" whilst skimming a page, and the fact that yellow on white is a computing cardinal sin in a way in the first place. (Wow... I'm overdramatic...) [[User:ScoreCounter|ScoreCounter]] ([[User talk:ScoreCounter|talk]]) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (EDT) | ||
I '''oppose'''. This really isn't an issue. I've been on this Wiki for almost two years, and I've only seen an illegible signature like three times. Also, as Toomai said, if someone's signature is hard to read, you can just address it on their talk page. <span style="font-family:AR JULIAN; font-size:12pt">[[User:ChuckNorris24|<span style="color :#ffbf00">Chuck</span>]][[User talk:ChuckNorris24|<span style="color:purple">Norris</span>]]</span>[[File:24.png|23px]] 17:19, 29 April 2014 (EDT) |
Revision as of 16:19, April 29, 2014
Wait, so...
If we're going to strictly enforce the rules and tell users like Lasifer that they have to have a sig that clearly reads their name, I say that 1337 B33FC4K3/Brian should have to change his sig or get a username change. It isn't really fair to new users to impose these rules on them when they aren't followed by all of our established users. I agree that he's more well-known as Brian, but that probably means he should get a username change anyway. DoctorPain99 00:34, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
- Support Maybe this should be brought up on his talk page as well. DarkFox01Now in 3D! 00:39, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
- I wasn't really looking for a vote with supports and opposes here; just a discussion to see what he and what other users thought. DoctorPain99 00:42, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
Proposal to disallow yellow in the signatures?
I hate being this guy, but I honestly can't read the signatures when their in the yellow font color. I know my eyesight is bad, but I don't think it's that. Rather, it's simply that the yellow is too pale against the white background and it just mixes in. It's actually worse than not being able to read it, because it blurs enough that I know it's there, but have to squint to read it properly (if I even can). If I'm the only one who's having this issue, then I'll just deal with it, but I think it's worth a discussion. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 12:43, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- 80%. I do think normal and pale yellows should be overruled, but darker variants probably could be okay. (And I have decently good eyesight, no offense intended) ScoreCounter (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- Thanks. I should have clarified: I only mean the actual <font color="yellow"> coloring. Other shades of yellow would be fine as long as they are legible. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- So this wouldn't work but this would? If so, I agree. Red (Talk) 13:11, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- It seems a little harsh on people who want yellow in their signatures... but I made my background black so I wouldn't know. Toast ltimatum 13:24, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- Yeah, I see what you mean, but all that really needs doing is a slight shade change. And, beside, if I were in the position, I'd sacrifice yellow freely for people to know my name easily. ScoreCounter (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- It seems a little harsh on people who want yellow in their signatures... but I made my background black so I wouldn't know. Toast ltimatum 13:24, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- So this wouldn't work but this would? If so, I agree. Red (Talk) 13:11, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- Thanks. I should have clarified: I only mean the actual <font color="yellow"> coloring. Other shades of yellow would be fine as long as they are legible. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
Maybe instead of "yellow is disallowed" we could use something like: "Any text and/or background colours are allowed, so long as the text remains easily readable against the wiki's standard white background.", so we could also cover very light pinks and such without having to patch leaks as they appear. Anything outside the standard "white"/"yellow"/etc would probably be a judgement call, but saying "hey your sig is too faint for me, can you darken it a little" seems easy enough. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 15:03, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
Signatures should be fully and easily legible, so I support a ruling disallowing too light of text colors. Omega Tyrant 15:51, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
Neutral Seems legit, though at the same time I think that as long as the sig links to the user in question's userpage/talkpage, then we can still tell who they are even if their signature is in an illegible color. MeatBall104: 300 edits, mothafuckah!!!!! 16:41, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
I do Support, but I will comment : what about people who are unsure of the alternative names/numbers, and -->MB104, it's more of a matter of saying, "Look, a... person...? wrote... this...?" whilst skimming a page, and the fact that yellow on white is a computing cardinal sin in a way in the first place. (Wow... I'm overdramatic...) ScoreCounter (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
I oppose. This really isn't an issue. I've been on this Wiki for almost two years, and I've only seen an illegible signature like three times. Also, as Toomai said, if someone's signature is hard to read, you can just address it on their talk page. ChuckNorris 17:19, 29 April 2014 (EDT)