SmashWiki talk:Sign your comments

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. Dark Fox 01 Now 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)

OK. Should someone ask Brian, then? Dark Fox 01 Great Fox is ready to go. 01:08, 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)

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. Chuck Norris 17:19, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Just because something doesn't popup often doesn't mean that it isn't a problem when it happens, and that there shouldn't be a ruling against it; in fact we shouldn't wait for something to become an issue before we implement policies against it. And sure, you could "ask" someone to change their signature color, but they can't be forced to if they refuse when we don't have a ruling against it here.

@Meatball: A signature should be immediately recognisable as to who it is, someone shouldn't have to see where the signature link leads to know which user the signature is from. Omega Tyrant 18:33, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

As long as "Yellow" color does not get disallowed as long as they darken the yellow text, then I support not allowing too light text colors. Dots (talk) The Player 18:38, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

[Edit Conflict] What if it's the Smash Arena? Sometimes colors used for SA participants may blend in with user signatures whether they're customized or not. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 18:41, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Neutral to oppose Though light colors like yellow can hardly be seen in standard talk pages, I'd rather have the colors darkened a little bit, enough to be seen in a standard talk page. Also, as stated by ZeldaStarfoxfan2164, there may be backgrounds in Smash Arena where light colors can be seen pretty well. Therefore, such a policy is hard to enforce. Berrenta (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Smash Arena doesn't matter, this is only about if the signature is legible on SmashWiki's default white background. And how is it at all "hard to enforce"?

"Hey X, your signature is currently in violation of our signature policy; the text in your current signature is too light for users to be able to properly read it on our default background. As such, you must darken the color of your signature so that other users can be able to immediately read your signature."

^That is all it takes, nothing complicated to enforce. Omega Tyrant 19:13, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Personally, I think Toomai's idea is best. If we went with that, I'd be neutral to support. Chuck Norris 19:18, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

One thing that hasn't been addressed yet is that sometimes overly bright colors are displayed differently depending on computers, servers, and the like. And each individual user may not see it the same way. For example, the laptop I'm using right now makes the bright yellow text demonstrated above very legible, despite the fact that it's on a white background, and I personally don't find it as irritating to read as some others do. A user shouldn't have to change their signature just because of a COUPLE of people, but they should definitely consider changing it if the vast majority of users who complain about it ask them to do so.

With all that said, why not write this as something like: "While overly/unnecessarily bright colors are discouraged in signatures, they are not prohibited. That said, you must switch to darker colors if enough users express that they find it irritating to read, or if there is at least one admin among such users"? Or as another option, we can allow such colors in sigs, as long as the text that provides a link to the user's userpage/talkpage is in a darker, more legible color. MeatBall104: 300 edits, mothafuckah!!!!! 20:12, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

"While overly/unnecessarily bright colors are discouraged in signatures, they are not prohibited. That said, you must switch to darker colors if enough users express that they find it irritating to read, or if there is at least one admin among such users"

This is a terrible suggestion that just overcomplicates it, for something that is just common sense; don't use an overly light color on a white background, we don't need to add unneeded bureaucracy to it and require a bunch of users to go tell someone that it's a problem. You have a computer that makes a bright yellow somehow supposedly completely readable to you a on a white background? Good for you, the rest of us don't, and that shouldn't make others using the default have to highlight a signature to read it. Omega Tyrant 20:22, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

I'll also point that if someone really wants bright yellow/pink/white as their signature text and they can't have it any other way, they can add a background color to their signature to make it fully legible, like Brian did with his (here is how his signature looks --Brian^{Don't try me!} )

So with what has been said on why allowing such text colors is bad, and when there exists a workaround for users that want those text colors, there's no reason to allow it. Omega Tyrant 20:38, 29 April 2014 (EDT)

Don't forget signatures must link to user pages, so as long as it can link, it's fine. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 01:20, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

What? I don't want to have to click on a link that's unreadable. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what I want to do. When I'm looking over a talk page, I want to know who said what, not have to click every blurry bit of text just to see it. I should also point out that there is no entitlement to a specific signature. The point of a signature is for it identify the user who made the comment, not to be whatever that user wants it to be. By the logic that it links to the user page so it's OK, it would be fine for my signature to be BALL S! because, while completely illegible and lacking of any indication of who I am, it still contains a link to my user page.

As to many of the above points, if we want to expand this to the other font colors that are illegible, great. Yellow was simply the most common color I was seeing. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 11:21, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Neutral leaning towards support: I agree with the fact that it shouldn't really be used on standard talk pages, but in the Smash Arena, even the default blue may be hard to read. It really depends. Red (Talk) 13:15, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

"Smash Arena doesn't matter, this is only about if the signature is legible on SmashWiki's default white background.". Omega Tyrant 13:47, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Then support. Red (Talk)

09:12, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

If there's no further dissent, I'll put this in. Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 16:44, 3 May 2014 (EDT)

...How many pictures are we allowed to have...?

The policy says we can have one small image, but recently there are a lot of sigs with more than one picture and no one seems to care, so has that been changed, or...? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 12:03, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

Bump ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:25, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I propose changing the policy to up to two images, with a height of up to 20px each and width of up to 50px combined. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I'd support the idea of that, despite me most likely only using one image forever... XD Disaster Flare

(talk) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Bump, and Support. People like Aidan have this, and no one cares.98.157.202.185 14:29, 23 December 2015 (EST)

Neutral to oppose: Consider this: with every image on a page, there comes greater load time. On a slower computer and/or Internet, allowing multiple images in signatures will make this more of an issue. Also, I personally feel like one image is enough for sigs really. Anything past that I would consider excessive. Serpent King 19:29, 23 December 2015 (EST)

I support changing it to two images. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:44, 23 December 2015 (EST)

Bump. 98.157.202.185 11:43, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Support Merging images is also a thing, but I can't see anything wrong with two images. Excluding SK's first point, but this is situational nowadays. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2016 (EST)

I am honestly getting tired of this, but Bump. 98.157.202.185 15:32, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Emojis in signatures

Basically, should we have some clear rules on them? Or just treat them as images and not allow more than two? Here's why I think this matters - if it's a case of wiki space, one emoji only uses up 4 bytes and is recalled by whatever device the viewing user is on. Images take up the space of the image plus the code required for parsing, scaling, etc. What do people think? Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 19:05, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

Considering emojis are different from images I wouldn't oppose having a seperate policy, yet at the same time I'm not that knowledgeable on how this stuff works. Since their somewhat treated as regular text I don't really know if having a seperate policy is necessary, unless they have an effect on loading times. One of the main reasons having too many images is disallowed is due to them slowing loading times on slower devices, along with the larger amount of code and bytes needed to display them. However I don't recall having that problem with emojis though. I'll be neutral for now until others share their thoughts. Omegα Toαd 19:48, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

Indeed, and another point in favour of emoji is that they are embedded in Unicode, which basically means they sit among the calling flags of ordinary text, among other things. I think you will find this explains a lot. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 19:56, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

While I am not opposed to this idea, something worth noting is that different emojis show up on different platforms, and some are even exclusive to some platforms. An example I can think of off the top of my head is the various LGBT flags, which are shown on certain devices as the white flag (you know, the one famous for its association with ~~France~~ surrenders) and different sex symbols by it. Aidan, the Rurouni 19:59, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

I fly that very flag on my Twitter, and while its appearance changes, it's pretty much the same between my Windows Laptop and iPhone. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:05, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

I can confirm that on Windows 7 a lot of emoji either don't display as a single character (like shrugs always turn into box box shrug, on rare occasions one is a sex symbol) or just as a box. Your sig properly shows the wolf but the fox is just a box. I took a quick look at Twitter and it seems they quietly convert emoji into images so they can display consistently, as the pride flag shows me two boxes or a box and a rainbow. My thoughts are that as long as the name part of the sig is in normal characters (which is already suggested in the main page) and there aren't, let's say, 10+ emoji then it is fine. --CanvasK (talk) 20:52, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

Regarding the points made:

The policy already warns users that custom fonts and symbols in their sigs, while permitted, may be rendered differently/incorrectly between devices, so emoji should be no different. It should be entirely up to the user to take incompatibilities with emoji into account when using them in their signature.
Emoji are symbols, not images; for the purposes of the policy, an image refers specifically to images uploaded to the wiki. Thus, emoji should not be limited to two per signature. As with any other symbol, excessive use of emoji in signatures should be dealt with individually.

I believe that simply stating that emoji should be used with caution, much like custom fonts and other symbols, should be enough. Nokii — 22:04, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

^If we go with that, then in the section warning about different fonts we could put something like:

"The same can also apply to emojis, as different platforms can display emojis differently, or in some cases, not display them at all."

Whaddaya think? Omegα Toαd 23:17, July 10, 2020 (EDT)

I'm all for that. If we get a few admins to say yes, we can go ahead and throw that in. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 01:11, July 11, 2020 (EDT)

The main purpose of the image limit is so signatures cannot be too extravagently coloured/shaped compared to the text around them. (The loading consideration is minor in comparison.) In that sense, I think having a limit of "two images and emojis combined" is the correct ruling. But since they are also font-based and browser-specific, they should also be warned against in the same way.

Here is my suggestion:

... you may want to ~~avoid~~ be cautious with esoteric or otherwise unusual characters in your signature (such as mathematical symbols, drawing shapes, or emojis) ... (to put in "Appearance and color")

* Emojis count towards the two-image limit. (to put in "Images")

Toomai Glittershine The Orchestral 10:26, July 11, 2020 (EDT)

I’m cool with that. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 19:09, July 11, 2020 (EDT)

I approve of that Omegα Toαd 19:13, July 11, 2020 (EDT)

Third-ed. --CanvasK (talk) 19:32, July 11, 2020 (EDT)