Wikipedia talk:Signatures should not contain images
- They waste resources
- Minimal "wasted" resources are outweighed by other benefits (readability).
- break the site
- Only if they're improperly formatted.
- make pages harder to read
- Colors make conversations easier to follow, IMO.
Long live colored signatures! (Which appear to be currently disabled because HTML Tidy is down) android79 23:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Minimal"? The use of images in signatures is horrific! violet/riga (t) 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Err, this policy references colored signatures, I see no mention of images, which I agree are a bad idea. android79 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It does now. Radiant_>|< 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Err, this policy references colored signatures, I see no mention of images, which I agree are a bad idea. android79 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- People with colored signatures untie! However I would have some objection to large signatures, sigs containing
line
breaks since it's annoying to read, or sigs containing pictures. Radiant_>|< 23:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes images are bad, but there's really nothing wrong with colors (the current situation was caused by something other than improperly closed sigs, however: After I attempted to tidy WP:ANI, Jtdirl informed me that it had happened to him before, and that the devs should be able to clean everything up.).--Sean|Black 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- yes but even when HTML Tidy isn't broken I've had to fix talk pages from time to time because someone's sig lost a tag.Geni 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)