Editing Forum:Signature policy

{{Forumheader|The World that Never was}}

<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ -->
{{sticky}}
{{DTN|time=02:20, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=As I have discovered from reviewing the results and forum-condemned brackets of the ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki's "The Keyblade War" tournament, I am noticing a difficulty in checking signatures to make sure they are non-anon (by signature), as well as with reading the votes and signatures. Many signatures are extremely elaborate, with flashing colors and graphics, use incredibly large images that actually force the line of text to be larger, which looks terrible and breaks continuity in writing/conversation, and/or does not display the name of the user directly or at all, instead forcing the reader to leave the page in order to see who the user is.

As we continue to develop in our creativity and... <s>elegancy</s> brutality of graphics in our signatures, which has done nothing but become very overbearing and disruptive over the last few months, I am proposing a signature policy for the ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki. Now, before I begin, this wiki is going to become a practical fansite, so this may not apply to the contributors or viewers that solely read and do not contribute to discussion or editing of the wiki productively... which sadly is an actual percentage of the wiki that cannot be ignored. However, this policy, if agreed upon, will be taken to the new ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki and carried out there.

This policy almost directly mirrors the ''Final Fantasy'' Wiki's policy on signatures. The reason? Compare how clean their tournament brackets are to ours in terms of the signatures' brutality, nuisance-like qualities, ability to tell who the author is, and the numbers of breaks in lines due to obtrusive images:

FFWiki:
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image1FF.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image2FF.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image3FF.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image4FF.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image5FF.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image6FF.png Image]

KHWiki:
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image1.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image2KH.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image3KH.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image4KH.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image5KH.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image6KH.png Image]
*[http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/dented-marble/Image7KH.png Image]

Please leave your comments and proposals that may be required to make this policy an agreeable one. Personally, I am absolutely tired of having to click on a user's signature, which sometimes forces you have to even go through the annoying and unnecessary trouble of finding the link in the signature, to see who wrote the corresponding message. Seeing pictures and characters that are tall, large, and aren't needed to simply say "I WROTE THIS" is aesthetically unpleasing and do not settle well with me either.

Lastly, I already discussed this with several KHWiki IRC-goers, and we all found this to be an acceptable policy we can benefit from. We all importantly agreed that while signatures are a form of user expression, expression does not require being obtrusive and disruptive with what you use to display yourself.}}

==Proposed Policy==
<b>
*All signatures must clearly display the username of the posting user. Since this is the ''English'' ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki, all signatures must also use a Latin script (A, B, C... X, Y, Z) to display the user name.
**For those of you with creative Japanese signatures, these will still be allowed, so long as your usual user name has already been written out in Latin characters.
**Abridging is fine, so long as the author of the comment is still obvious.
*All signatures must be followed or include a timestamp. This is not a large issue since this is already being done for the most part, but without a timestamp, we cannot tell when a discussion has taken place, and therefore its relevance/acknowledgment of other related discussions.
*''NO MORE UNNECESSARILY AND OBNOXIOUSLY LARGE IMAGES. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.'' Images must fit within the size parameters of the text, which is 15px. This shall be the limit for image size.
*All signatures must link to ''at least'' the central user page of the posting user, i.e. not their "Userpage+" or user sub-page. Those can be linked to as well, of course, but the central user page is a necessity.</b>

==Comments==
{{SilverCrono|time=02:26, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=As Doorsey said, this policy already happened at the FFwiki. I approved of it there, and I approve of it here. Obnoxious sigs are obnoxious, and annoyed Crono is annoyed.}}
{{Chitalian8|time=02:30, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|joshua= I approve of this policy. Also, certain signatures have are missing </span> tags, [[User:IceCreamRockz/Signature|this one]] comes to mind. It turns all of the following text into that font.}}
I'm for this policy, and I think you covered probably the most important points. It reminds me of the [http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/SIG HRWiki signature policy], which seems a reasonable guideline for signatures.  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 02:31, December 12, 2010 (UTC){{KrytenKoro|Images need to be in-line, yeah that makes sense. Timestamp is automatic, as long as you use all four tildes.

However, that the signature most contain your username. Even on the ffwiki, I'm seeing a lot of people just signing with initials, or some other thing. Also, as long as your signature links to your talk page (something I can agree on), you just have to mouseover the link, or if you are editing, the name is there.

I can agree with the changes made to prevent disrupting the page, and to make sure you are accessible, but I can't agree with telling everyone "Your signature has to be "username timestamp".}}
{{Maggosh|nathan=Neither can I. I side with Kryten on this. Plus I'm surprised, DTN, that you don't know about the mouseover trick.}}

{{Soxra|xmas=Agreed 100%, particularly about the super-high images. I've also noticed the few signatures that are completely generic. It borders on an unsigned vote, in the case of TKW. (Except images can be up to 17px high, unless the line is affected by <nowiki><small></nowiki> or another text-size change.)

Chitalian, usually that isn't an issue if the CORRECT tags are left open. Signatures almost always have a newline after them, which cuts off all the formatting from bleeding into other posts. But I do think there should be a policy against this as most people aren't sure what the CORRECT tags are.

Also, I agree with Kryten's points. As long as there's a link to the user page, initials or nicknames should be okay.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=02:33, December 12, 2010}}}}

{{Chitalian8|time=02:34, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text= The problem is, Soxra, in things like TKW, there are no new lines, just votes one line after another.
EDIT: Also, what is it you mean by "generic?" Are you talking about a signature that is just the username, then timestamp?}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=@Newlines, yes, but I thought the bullets cut off the formatting. I might be wrong.

@Generic: I mean ones that are just an image (there's one that is just Sephiroth's face; I'd tell you whose it was, except I don't know). Generic as in unidentifiable.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=02:39, December 12, 2010}}}}

{{17m|season=okay I've changed my signature to meet the criteria of the policy. Now, can timestamps made automatic or do we have to type <nowiki> ~~~~~ </nowiki> besides our signature?}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> -> Signature. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> -> Signature, Timestamp. <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> -> Timestamp. So just use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=05:03, December 12, 2010}}}}

{{neumannz|time=05:06, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=Depends on how you do it. If you have your signature set under Preferences, then it should be automatic. Otherwise, you'll have to use the five tildes.

I would like to bring up another point about signatures, though. Now everyone has started putting their signatures into the Template namespace in order to make easy changes, especially re: pictures. But for the sake of keeping the number of templates set aside for user use to a minimum, I would like to suggest moving them back to the userspaces. There are ways to do this and still get around the SUBST thing the auto-signature function does.}}

{{JFHavoc|time=05:08, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|xmas=Seems reasonable to me.}}

{{17m|season= @Soxra: no, I'm talking about customized signature's timestamp. @neumannzz: preferences? what's that?}}
{{neumannz|time=05:23, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=...I... what?

You get to Preferences by clicking on the dropbox with your username in the top-right corner of the screen. Scroll down until you find the options for your signature.

Speaking of, you should check on yours. Your signature is making all the text that follows it to green Times New Roman.}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=@Neumannz: He's missing a <nowiki></font></nowiki> tag at the end of his second link.

@17m: There's a really complex way of making it so you don't have to do the five tildes. But it's WAY easier to just do the five tildes.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=05:26, December 12, 2010}}}}
Complex? I've never had to use the five tildes, it's always added a timestamp automatically, and I barely did anything to set up my sig...  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 05:28, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
{{Soxra|text=As far as I can tell, 17m doesn't mean the basic timestamp obtained by the four-tilde signature insert. He wants one in his signature itself, to be able to be colored/fonted/shadowed... like in mine: {{User:Soxra/Sig|t=05:30, December 12, 2010}}|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=05:30, December 12, 2010}}}}
{{ICR|time=05:32, December 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=I apologize about cutting in your conversation, but I believe that earlier, Chitalian8 mentioned that my signature was bleeding its text to the text after. I've fixed my signature, and I'll decrease the size of my picture to 15 pixels immediately. Thank you, Chitalian, for bringing that up. I approve of this signature policy, and I believe that every user should abide by it.}}

EDIT CONFLICT: @17master For that, you have to create an autosig page, put your template in that, and them use that autosig in your custom signature in preferences, it gives you an automatic timestamp. {{User:Chitalian8/Sig}} 05:33, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

{{Soxra|text=ICR, if you want to edit the height of an image to 15px, you want to do <nowiki>[[File:some_file_name.png|x15px]]</nowiki>, including that "x" before the 15. Otherwise, you're setting the width. ;)

<small>''PS: Last message in this conversation for today. Just got a glance at the time.''</small>|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=05:34, December 12, 2010}}}}

Yep, I've got that. I already fixed it. {{User:IceCreamRockz/Signature}} 05:36, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
{{EO|time=01:07, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|hooded=I agree with Kryten's standpoint on things. Some of us use the "option" feature on our signatures. The mouseover will remove any uncertainty as to who's who, and as long as your main username using the standard alphabet ("A,B,C,D...") is within the list of possible choices, I don't see how there's anything wrong with doing this. 

In terms of image sizes - I've seen Wikis that don't allow images, and I've seen them with size limitations. I think it all just depends on the image you're using. An image like [[File:DL Aqua.png|90px]] is practically unreadable at a smaller size than 90px. Same for [[File:DL AquaAvatar1.png|50px]], which is hardly visible or idtentifiable like the user wants as the images's subject at a size smaller than 50px. Keyblade images are popular in signatures and are only visible at at least 30-35px. Character renders are very hard to fit into signatures, and should not be used AT ALL, since no matter how you size them, they're still a nuisance in things like the Keyblade War or Mirage Arena, taking up too much space. The point I'm trying to make is that people use the images to decorate their signatures. They're just empty and extra space if you can't see them. That's why, for the sake of the community, we should create different pixel limits for each image type (Keyblades, D-Link Images, etc) rather than one applicable for all.}}

{{DTN|time=01:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=...ENX, you just missed the ''entire point'' of image restrictions.

We aren't lowering the requirement to 15px to make images look terrible. Actually, the way an image looks ''does not matter'' in this policy. We chose 15px because this is the height of the text, and anything else spaces out the text and makes it look horrible--like in your message. Therefore, making ''any'' pixel limit that is about 15px is completely against this policy and idea and does not solve a single thing that we are trying to accomplish.

Similarly, images are optional in a signature, so this is like a restriction on them that only applies ''if'' you choose to use them.}}

The problem I have with that argument is that the idea that the policy should allow for users to choose the pictures they want kind of negates the point of having a policy in the first place. Not that we can't be more lax than x15px in height. After all, x20px is still small enough to fit on a single line with no trouble whatsoever. And I don't think [[File:DL Aqua.png|x20px]] and [[File:DL AquaAvatar1.png|x20px]] are too unrecognizable.  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 01:36, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
{{EO|time=01:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|annoyed=It seems to me that now we're just making policies for the sake of making them. The issue was brought about because of something as stupid and irrelevant as the Keyblade War. Signatures and the images in them have little to no effect on a talk page, especially since 3/4 of us use talk bubbles anyways, and those of us that don't use talk bubbles 24/7 have signatures that fit the requirements of this little policy you all are trying to create. The only time where this could be a problem would be in another Keyblade War-like situation, the Mirage Arena, which is COMPLETELY FOR FUN and has NO EFFECT on Mainspace. Hence it should NOT be a problem. I don't see why we can't be more leniant and just say "Fine. We can't expect you all to obey." Warning/banning someone because they fail to abide by a signature policy (which it is inevitible that this will be the case eventually) is sort of lame in the grand scheme of things in the long, sad history of things to be warned/banned for. The fact that three quarters of a policy is based on ONE PERSON's OPINION rather than a majority of the community (which I really don't see how their input matters, sometimes) really makes it not worth having. A worthwhile policy is one that the COMMUNITY feels should be enacted. Community support is saying "Yeah, I notice that too. We should develop this, and here's how I think how...". Saying "I approve of this one person's idea, let's do it" is NOT getting the community support needed for a policy. It's simply saying "My opinion doesn't matter. May as well just follow the crowd." 

In terms of the actual image sizes, we're STILL enforcing a policy of sorts, granted it's much more lax than "All images must be 15px or DIE!" Some users here have character themes they like to use. And they want to put an image in their signature to enhance/reference that. If you're going to put a 20px image of Aqua in your signature to represent your Aqua theme, you may as well put a blue dot in the image's place, since that's all you see! 

In the end, I am not any different than a regular user. But I felt that I should put the two cents in from people who agree with my viewpoint on this for those who wouldn't do it themselves. Now that I have done that, I trust the WIKI AS A WHOLE to make the right decision.}}

That's not really what you mean. You mean you trust the wiki as a whole to agree with your opinions. 

The fact is, I don't really know why we've never had a signature policy of any kind before. As one of those things that are up to users to create and customize, it really only makes sense for there to be a policy so that they're aren't disruptive. On contrary to what you believe, there is no reason to tolerate disruption on talk pages any more than on the Keyblade War pages.  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 02:16, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
{{SilverCrono|time=02:35, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|mad=Alright, here's what I see, ENX.

''I don't see why we can't be more leniant and just say "Fine. We can't expect you all to obey."''
:Because that would make the point of a "policy" completely useless. The point of a policy is to make rules for everyone to follow.

''The fact that three quarters of a policy is based on ONE PERSON's OPINION rather than a majority of the community (which I really don't see how their input matters, sometimes) really makes it not worth having.''
:One person's opinion that was agreed on by a multitude of users. Almost everything is made because of one person's opinion, why is this any different? 

''A worthwhile policy is one that the COMMUNITY feels should be enacted. Community support is saying "Yeah, I notice that too. We should develop this, and here's how I think how...". Saying "I approve of this one person's idea, let's do it" is NOT getting the community support needed for a policy. It's simply saying "My opinion doesn't matter. May as well just follow the crowd."''
:The community is talking about it. You're the one busting in making a huge fuss about this. Lots of people have submitted their opinion and ideas for changes, that's the point of this forum.  Also, I think that second quote was directed at me. Just because I agree with the policy and I choose to keep it going does ''not'' make me a simple sheep or lemming. Having an opinion and approving of a policy =/= following a crowd. In fact, I posted a comment ''first'', so your logic is moot.

''In terms of the actual image sizes, we're STILL enforcing a policy of sorts, granted it's much more lax than "All images must be 15px or DIE!"''
:...Who said that?

''Some users here have character themes they like to use. And they want to put an image in their signature to enhance/reference that. If you're going to put a 20px image of Aqua in your signature to represent your Aqua theme, you may as well put a blue dot in the image's place, since that's all you see! ''
:So don't use an Aqua picture, or get another, better one. An image on a signature being resized isn't as serious as you chock it up to be.

''In the end, I am not any different than a regular user. But I felt that I should put the two cents in from people who agree with my viewpoint on this for those who wouldn't do it themselves. Now that I have done that, I trust the WIKI AS A WHOLE to make the right decision.''
:Pretty much what Neumannz said. You have an opinion, and you trust the "community" to join your cause, the "right decision" - now you're the one telling people to follow a crowd.

Please don't make misguided statements like this, man.}}
:My view - it is a pain in the ASS to fix image links when they appear in signatures, and most of our images need to be renamed. At the very least, we should have a policy that if people are using our images in signatures, they should be called through a template, so that only one edit needs to be made to fix the links on every page they appear.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 02:38, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

{{neumannz|time=02:44, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=Well, it would certainly be too much to expect people to go back and fix every signature they did if it isn't a template or a transclusion from a subpage. I think we can agree on that.}}
{{DTN|time=03:20, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=WOAH WOAH WOAH. Woah. Let's not turn this into Gray vs. Grey guys. <small><small>Hooray for alliteration!</small></small>

Kryten, I totally agree with you there. Perhaps we should change the image clause to be "If you wish to use images in your signature, they must be no more than 15 (or 20, I have to experiment with that myself) pixels high, and should be transcluded through a template."

Also, in regards to what ENX and Crono both mentioned, this is just what I am suggesting. I have seen people mention other ideas, some of which are being taken into this plan--such as the one above. If you have a suggestion, please say so. I don't want this to become "Oh, DTN made a suggestion, I'll vote for it!" That goes completely against the consensus we are trying to get. We are, however, getting much positive feedback, and I am glad to see that we are, for the most part, able to agree that we do at the very least need a policy to mandate signatures.}}

{{JFHavoc|time=05:00, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=I had actually noticed this before and thought that the image sizes in some signatures were just ''ridiculous''. I only bring this up because ENX said a consensus was more of something that everyone noticed and thought needed to be fixed.}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=The correct height for images in a signature is <=17px. Just use Chrome's "Inspect Element" to try setting different heights. Anything 18px or higher will expand the SPAN tag height.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=5:29am, December 16, 2010 (UTC)}}}}
{{TNE|time=21:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|noel=No, a thousand times no. A signature is an expression of oneself. If we were to be given a policy regarding an EXPRESSION OF ONESELF, then we'd have nothing left. SER's signature, my signature, Dan's signature- - these are all reflections of our identities. And I'm sure the same can be said for the rest. I am fully against the policy. What I will ''not'' be against, however, is when images are imported which contravene KHW's image policy - those have to go. There's always Photobucket.}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=Putting a fifty-foot wide flag on the bumper of my car is an expression of myself. But you don't see them allowing that. Just because an image has to be small and look respectable doesn't mean you can't express yourself. The Keyblade in my signature doesn't have to be 50px high for people to get that I like Wayward Wind.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=9:37pm, December 16, 2010 (UTC)}}}}
{{Maggosh|nathan=...I'll have to go with trois.}}
{{EO|time=21:43, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=Always love how TNE states exactly what I'm thinking, granted it's in a more laid-back way. I side with her 100%}}
{{TNE|time=21:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|noel=To Soxra : I understand where you are coming from. The point is, most of us, if not all, prefer our images small. I have no problem with images. If we were to incorporate the image height thing into our KHW image policy, so be it. I'm fine with it. I am ''NOT'', however, fine with the changes to a sig by creating rules which are bound to contravene what the person is best. And ''yes'', to the naked eye, 15px Aqua is not recognisable.}}
{{Soxra|roxas=Then I semi-agree with you. I think that there should be some form of the person's name in the signature, though (so putting [[User:Soxra|ASDS]][[User_talk:Soxra|FADF]] as my signature would not be okay). And though I do like timestamps, I can live without them.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=9:51pm, December 16, 2010 (UTC)}}}}
{{Maggosh|nathan=But you CAN hover your cursor over the link and see where it leads, so I don't see a problem with that.}}
{{TNE|time=21:55, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|noel=To Soxra : TBH, I'm not sure about the timestamps... They were made obligatory last year, on my return from National Service. Prior to that, I didn't use the five tildes in my talkbox, and neither did anyone use it in his sig. But now I do it as a force of habit. I'm on the fence where this is concerned... I do understand, though, why we need those : it's a sort of record for any archive which has taken place : it'd be difficult to check the page history with Oasis as is.}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=GAH, EDIT CONFLICTS. [/rage]

Yes, Maggosh, but it gets a bit cumbersome when you have to do that every time you want to see someone's name. You also can't do it on an iPod/Mobile Phone.

I actually wasn't aware they're obligatory. Many people don't use them, particularly in talk bubbles (but often in signatures, too, I'm finding). The thing about them is that it means you don't have to go to the history to see how old a forum topic or article talk subsection is.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=9:58pm, December 16, 2010 (UTC)}}}}

{{Chitalian8|time=22:03, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|hane= To Soxra: On an iPod, you can hold down the link, and then it displays the link.}}

{{Maggosh|nathan=And really, who would edit the wiki on a cellphone?}}
{{Soxra|ienzo=Good point, Chitalian, Android does that too.

Maggosh, I have unlimited data and nothing better to do while waiting at the train. I got a smartphone for a reason. =P|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=10:08pm, December 16, 2010 (UTC)}}}}


{{KrytenKoro|emotion=tired|Idea!

Is there anyone here using their full legal name as their user account?

...


...


Didn't think so.

So, how do we recognize each other? By the name we give to our actions. Well, that's pretty much what a personalized signature is, right? As long as someone isn't changing their signature fifty times over the course of one discussion, we can keep in our head, "Okay, person A says this, this, and then this."

That's the point of signatures, after all - just to provide accountability to who is saying what, and to prevent the sockpuppeting nonsense. Being able to access the person's account is really irrelevant to the point of the signature - there's nothing on their user page that would help the discussion to end responsibly ('cause it would require that we be using ad hominem attacks for that to be useful, see?), and it's not like we sign the main articles when we edit them - if you're checking the edit history to see who's editing what (if you for some reason need to say "you edited something while we were still discussing it, blah blah blah!"), then you can just as easily check the talk page history.

Then, the issue of what text you're allowed to have...

...honestly, we don't have any rules that your user account must contain your legal name in it. It's a bit of hyperbole, but I think it's the same principle here.

Basically, as long as you can consistently recognize that what one person says is coming from one person, that person, then the signature has done it's full job. Everything else is decoration.

''As regards that decoration'', I reiterate that putting images in signatures makes life hell for the people who have to clean up when the images are renamed or deleted, and that people should damn sure put any sig-images within a template, especially since the images wouldn't show up on other wikis anyway.

Also, for the image height - seriously, it's disruptive to have huge images. From pure functional and aesthetic reasons, they need to be less than 2x the height of the text.}}
{{neumannz|time=23:30, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=TNE, while I can appreciate the need for people to express themselves creatively and then spread that expression around like a completely inappropriate (or too appropriate, one might say) metaphor, not having a policy of some kind would be irresponsible. Freedom of speech is great and all, but you'll still be arrested for indecent exposure if you go dancing on a street conrner naked. Admittedly, that is an extreme example for an argument regarding SINGATURES ON AN EFFING WIKI, but the point is still there. Rules stave off the threat of anarchy, even on a website about video games.

And if one is not creative enough to work in under 20 to 40 pixels of height, well, then I'm disappointed.}}
{{DTN|time=00:13, December 17, 2010 (UTC)|text=To expand on what Neumannz has already stated, most of those are already in effect; most users use timestamps and link to some page in their userspace. Obviously, we are going to strongly consider modifying the rule about display of the username, but the images is the big deal.

Images, images, images. I think you might need to go view the images up at the top again to refresh your memory of just how badly they can parse the text margin, and how distracting they are in conversation on the wiki. Also, whenever I have to fix a piece of formatting or a discussion, you can bet that it usually has to do with a) missing span code or b) an image so large it is actually ''pushing down other messages''.

Saying that everyone is allowed freedom in whatever expression they choose in their signature allowed the extremes--for example, signatures that are directly disrespectful to other users, use extremely profanity for a ''Kingdom Hearts'' site, or have obnoxiously large images, say around 1000000px. There are a million and some odd more things that you are allowing when you just say that anything goes. And that's the reason we are bringing this up now--the signatures have gotten to this point of being unmanageable and ridiculous. 

That's what you are saying, TNE--that we should allow these kind of extremes so that people don't have to '''''ever so slightly''''' modify their signatures. Also, to say that your ''right to have a signature with a big picture on a silly wiki about a children's video game series'' is the only thing you have left is an absolutely ridiculous example of litotes. I mean not to offend you at all, but... this just seems really insane to me to be suggested. My apologies.

...

Also, apparently 17-20 pixels is a bit more correct than 15. I'm all for whatever size is the maximum height of pixels that does not raise a line of text.}}
{{Soxra|hood=[http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9528/imgheighta.png]|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=1:54am, December 17, 2010 (UTC)}}}}

== Revised Policy ==

<b>
*All signatures must link to a page in the posting user's userspace, preferably their user page or talk page.
*All signatures must be followed by or include a timestamp in some form.
*''ALL IMAGES MUST BE NO MORE THAN x17px, TO PREVENT AFFECTING THE LINE'S HEIGHT.''
**All personal images used must be linked from Photobucket or another image-sharing site; all images being hosted on the wiki are fine to use ''if sized properly''.
**If you are you going to use an image in your signature, ''it  must be transcluded through a template.''</b>

=== Approval/Disapproval ===
{{DTN|time=21:23, December 17, 2010 (UTC)|text=A simple "yay" or "nay" is all we need. I've taken in all of the discussion and its feedback into revising this, and I think this should work fine. If I missed your contribution to discussion and/or you still feel something needs to be added/fixed/removed, please mention it below.

Anyway, yay, I'm all for this.}}
{{KrytenKoro|Nay. I can't support the policy unless it requires any image-calls to be done within templates (our images or not).}}
{{DTN|time=21:37, December 17, 2010 (UTC)|text=Whoops, missed that bit. Added.

Still yay.}}
{{Soxra|roxas=Yay, this police be the broth of me own stubby shillelagh.|time={{User:Soxra/Sig|t=10:54pm, December 17, 2010 (UTC)}}}}