User:Elric Coy/sandbox4

Proposal (Signature Image Size)
I would like bring up a subject previously discussed by other people since it seems the subject was never really brought to a conclusion. Why must signature icons be a square 19x19px. After reading through the archives I have noted that more than one person has wanted to make the same changes I am proposing.

Current Policy
The current policy for signatures and icons states the following...

"A signature identifies you and your contributions to Guild Wars Wiki. It is a reference by which other users recognize and give attribution to you as a user, which incidentally encourages civility in discussions."

"Your signature is what identifies you as a user"

"A small image or icon may be included in your signature. "

"The image used is constrained to a maximum size of 19x19 pixels, to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability."

"Be sparing with the use of colors, especially background colors. Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page."

And because I will be bringing it up later in this post... The current policy on User Pages states...

"Registered users in the official Guild Wars Wiki may create user pages to introduce themselves to and communicate with the community. User pages help in organizing editorial tasks and foster community spirit and camaraderie."

Requested Change
The only changes I wish to make are


 * "The image used is constrained to a maximum height of 19 pixels and a maximum width of 100 pixels to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability."

or
 * "The image used is constrained to a maximum height and width to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability. Suggested maximum size for signature icons is 19px x 100px or smaller.  If your image is found to be disruptive you will be asked to change it."

and the following should refer to your signature icon as well as the highly formatted text in some peoples signatures...


 * "Be sparing with the use of colors, especially background colors. Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page."

Reasoning behind Change
Many of us would like to customize their signature and change the fonts/colors to be a little more unique and to have the ability to express ourselves with each and every change we sign our name to. Not everyone has every font face installed and many of us would like to have the opportunity to be more unique in our signature by using some exotic font faces that some people may not have. Not everyone wants to download and the consequently re-upload the same icon image as is already on the server. The change I am proposing is not meant to break the current rule. Only to improve upon it as it has already been improved upon before when signature icons were added as a luxury. Icons are used to distinguish one thing from another. We distinguish ourselves from each other every day in our desire for individuality. This change is recognized by the wiki community and rules about signatures have changed in the past to reflect this desire.

"Spirit of the Law" vs "Letter of the Law"
Many times in court a judge will have to make decisions based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law due to the fact that sometimes the letter of the law contradicts common sense in a particular case. He or she may even instruct the jury to keep that thought in mind when determining the outcome of the case being presented. With that said...


 * The letter of the law is really simple. 19px by 19px and that is all you are allowed.


 * The spirit of the signature rules are to allow each user to identify him or herself in a unique way which is readily recognizable to all others (which incidentally encourages civility in discussions quote from signature policy page ). The signatures are only used on talk pages which means that each contribution must be attributed to its creator even if it's creator does not own his or her work. Signatures have evolved to be a part of our identity and thus a way for people to easily and readily identify each other while at the same time being able to express our creativity.  This is proven by...


 * A statement made by Auntmousie in a previous iteration of this arguement... "if you want nothing more than unequivocal identification of a post's source, then policy should be "default signatures only". Anything else is, in effect, an invitation to self-expression"
 * Policy Change is an invitation to self expression! After reading through the archives on this subject it was once stated that this wiki at one point had zero signature icons and each signature was little more than text only with no links.  The simple fact that this rule changed implies that the "default signatures only" rule was outdated due to the users' desire to show their self-expression.  Thus proving my point.
 * Stated in the User Page Policy "User pages help in organizing editorial tasks and foster community spirit and camaraderie" which means...
 * Your signature is a link to your identity and your user page.
 * Your user page is a snapshot of your identity.
 * Sharing your identity helps to foster community spirit and camaraderie.
 * Having a unique signature makes it easy to identify contributions made on talk pages.

Contradictions
People like me who legitamitely want to use a properly sized(so as to not cause a page break or alter line spacing) and formated image as their sig icon are not allowed to do so, yet many people who use this wiki have signatures that take up more room on a page and are much more visually outstanding than my proposed new limit on signature icons could incur.

For example... A few signatures that I have copied and pasted from around the wiki here. I will include my own proposed image to prove my point that my image size is no different than the font changes that many people make on their signature. In additon I will include a worst case (not counting color combinations.

-- Silent Storm      --  Brains12 \ talk  -- ab.er. rant    -- Kakarot      - Y0_ ich_halt    -- Shadowphoenix    ~PheNaxKian   Talk 

Of course... My image does not match the icon requirements exactly. I resized it down to 40px wide so the height was acceptable. As you can see my image makes no more difference to visual line spacing than changing background colors can unless you were to use my worst case scenario in which the harsh black and white letters stand out very clearly... but still do not change line spacing enough to be notable.

Conclussion
Give us a little bit more elbow room to work with when we are designing our signatures and make things fair for people that want to customize their signature with more than a tiny square and some poorly colored and choosen fonts or take away our rights to individuality all together by reducing us to a name on an account and a time stamp so nobody can complain about the fact that one guy can use font commands to make his signature highly recognizable but others are not allowed to use a small image that takes up less space and sometimes less code.

Elric talk 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)