Wikipedia talk:Signatures should not contain images

1. They waste resources

   Minimal "wasted" resources are outweighed by other benefits (readability).

2. break the site

   Only if they're improperly formatted.

3. 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)

• 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)

The solution to that is user education. android's boring signature 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)