UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Compatibility

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

It doesn't look like that anymore on IE. If that happens, it means you're not using the latest version of IE, but rather an older version. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Here's an example of what it looks like now in the latest version of IE: [1]

Note Mis's signature and the fact that the screenshot is of IE. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:50, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I really had the idea certain wiki code did not work on Explorer, even the latest versions. How does Aichon's userpage look like?--Thadeous Oakley 23:59, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Still looks fine. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:00, 15 October 2010 (BST)

It looks fine but the code doesn't work in terms of linking to the user.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:57, 15 October 2010 (BST)

I actually "fixed" (i.e. added unnecessary code to) my userpage to make it not look like crap in IE a month or two back, since IE lacks support for some very simple stuff (e.g. they don't even support rgba...what the hell, Microsoft?). At this point, my page should be mostly together in IE7+ and shouldn't have random shapes and text flying all over the place. I didn't check it in IE6, but I assume it still works okay-ish. And certain wiki code/HTML/CSS does indeed not work in even the latest versions of IE (hence why there are an abundance of hacks out there that web developers use to try and make things look halfway decent in IE when every other browser supports the features natively), but Rooster and I (mostly Rooster) finagled and massaged it and then beat it with a stick after shoving a load more code in until it worked nicely with at least IE8 and didn't break the page for IE6 and IE7. —Aichon— 18:12, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Rather than "for internet explorer" why not make it all-friendly and make it "for all browsers"? I mean, most browsers are better than IE, but I think it's more well-rounded that way. Also, I really like this policy because those signatures are ridiculously annoying and essentially bypass the "you must contain a link to your userspace" rule if the viewer is on IE.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:55, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Hey, I use Firefox myself, the reason I mentioned IE and not, for example, Opera or Safari is that IE is the most popular one out there. But yeah, that works too. --Thadeous Oakley 23:59, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Seems a moot point now given Axe's screenie. What versions of IE do and don't work? 00:11, 15 October 2010 (BST)

I agree with Yonnua, we should spread this to all browsers, or at least the main ones: Chrome, Safari, IE and FF. If something breaks a page on any of those it's worth forcing them to change it. -- LEMON #1 00:42, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Perhaps the ones set out by the European Commission? I think it's mainly those you've listed, but they're alledgedly the general ones. If there's anything barmy on there, then we probably shouldn't, but at least DDR's four should be included.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:28, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Thanks to Iscariot I've always been sketchy on relying on the governing by a national polical system tbh, but as long as everyone can agree on something, I'd like to think those four would be given as a minimum. -- LEMON #1 11:54, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Right, other than the four above the EC give: Opera, iron, flock, Maxthon, K-meleon, Lunascape, Avant and Flashpeak. I've heard of maybe one of these? Does anybody here use any of these, or even know anybody who does?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:30, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Much like most of the Commission's work, they're probably insignificant or fictional. 15:53, 15 October 2010 (BST)

I use Opera (with Chrome as back-up) and I've never experienced any signature problems. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 15:57, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Thadeous Oakley said:

What this means in practice is that people who use a different browser, like Firefox or Chrome, should always check whether or not their signature does not break when viewed through Internet Explorer.

I don't have IE on my machine. How do I check?--~ 16:22, 15 October 2010 (BST)

It's fine (I'm using an old IE right now). A general rule for the kind of breaking in Mis' sig (as well as AH and DDR's old ones) is if you post on my talk page and the page breaks massively, it doesn't work.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:39, 15 October 2010 (BST)

If there is really a way to check signature compatibility just by posting on a talk page then why not dedicate a page soley to that purpose? I really don't want to spam people and I REALLY don't want to use IE. --~ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Well, my talk page (and the code on it) doesn't test for all issues of the code. It's just that the code destroys my talk, and for a different reason, it also doesn't work on earlier IE. I'm sure if somebody was unable to read your sig, they'd tell you about it. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:16, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Already Fixed

See this discussion. - Me and Aichon had a discussion on this whilst we were trying to hack together a fix to the Click template. Some people nicked the code halfway though which fixed the template except for the problems in IE. Long story short, it's fixed and works on IE7 or later IIRC. (as well as the other common browsers) If people still need links on images, either do the image redirect thing or use the new template {{ClickInternal}}. If somebody else's is broken, arby them for general breakage since they have no reason not to fix it. --  RoosterDragon  17:14, 15 October 2010 (BST)

I'm using IE7, and it does not work.--Thadeous Oakley 17:56, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Guess I remembered wrong... actually wait. Does it not work, but also not break? Maybe I meant that. Also get IE8. --  RoosterDragon  18:39, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Check the link on the project page. That's IE7. Also, I use firefox myself, but not all people do :(. Also, while were busythis --Thadeous Oakley 19:01, 15 October 2010 (BST)

Frankly I don't care about the people on IE6. IE7 isn't as bad but you're still 4 years behind the curve. Even worse once IE9 is out. This discussion as a whole is a waste of time. We're talking broken code on really old browsers that most wiki users don't use. IE8 and especially IE9 handle stuff just as good as other browsers do. We're only here because a few users grabbed code from a sandbox and decided it stable enough to apply to signatures. Not the smartest move ever, but once those few fix it it's basically like this never happened and we wouldn't be here wasted lengthy paragraphs on stuff our wiki shouldn't really be worrying over. I'm struggling to imagine how this would've ever come about had not the very specific set of circumstances that lead us here occurred. I can't actually imagine this ever coming up again, actually. --  RoosterDragon  20:16, 21 October 2010 (BST)

Rooster, although this came about because of that problem, it's in no way limited to that. It deals with any issue whereby somebody's signature breaks in a major browser. You shouldn't look at it just in the scope of the one problem.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:31, 21 October 2010 (BST)

If you can provide me a list of past instances where somebody's sig has broken in one major browser, but not others, I might agree. Then given that modern browsers are getting better at fixing their eccentricities and only the older browsers which continue to fall out of use are a possible problem, explain how likely it is that we need more red tape and something as fucking annoying as doing a cross browser check of your sig. Nobody will do it. Barely anybody has the inclination or the reason to check their general code in more than one browser, most people don't even have more than one browser for god's sake. If they did we wouldn't have -moz-border-radius hardcoded on every single thing that has ever had a border. If there's an error people will suggest a fix, or decide it's too small to care about. We don't need policy to tell them to use common sense and then make them waste time in other browsers or submitting VB cases.

I'm just annoyed that events lined up in the most unlikely of ways to the point where we're wasting time on the wiki's most red-tape laden discussion format, and discussing ways to add more rules that will have literally no use nor effect. --  RoosterDragon  21:00, 21 October 2010 (BST)

I don't see this as people having to cross-check browsers (may be wrong if the policy actually says that). I assumed it was referring to the current system, whereby if it was screwing up, somebody would tell you and you'd have 7 days to sort it out.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:06, 21 October 2010 (BST)

At which point you'd either need to get another browser and check it yourself or rely on friendly outsider help to fix it. Said help would usually show up without the need to threaten VB, and in either case putting in effort to fix it in outdated software that nobody in their right mind should be using is still pointless to me. --  RoosterDragon  21:17, 21 October 2010 (BST)

So by your logic, we should remove all regulations on signatures, because there's no "need to threaten VB".--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:47, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I'm just putting my thoughts here

Since I'm kinda the one responsible for creating the code used in those sigs, I figure I should add my 2 cents. And since the conversations above are all over the place, I'd rather just put them in one spot, rather than breaking them into 5-6 comments. I have a tl;dr summary at the bottom of my comment if you want to skip this stuff.

1. First, let's define a few terms so we can speak more easily. "Broken" means that it breaks policy by showing up on multiple lines (e.g. Mis' and DDR's sigs in the image that Thad provided). "Not working" means that it shows up fine (i.e. one line), but clicking on the images takes you to the page for the image (you may be wiki-redirected from there).
2. As Rooster said, the problem should be fixed now (i.e. not broken in any major browser, and working properly in IE8+ and other major browser), assuming that the people using those signatures update to the most recent code, rather than using the old code.
3. In IE6 and IE7, the current version of the code does not work, but it also does not break. If Thad, or anyone else thinks this statement is incorrect, please point me to the relevant still-broken signatures, since I am not aware of them (unless Mis is still using the old code, in which case, shame on him).
4. People using the code in their sigs are supposed to also use image redirects as a fallback method for older browsers that don't support the code. Image redirects have long been permitted in signatures (e.g. Iscariot's Cylon signature), so this should be a non-issue. This fact is explained on the {{Click}} template's page even, though I suppose it could be made more explicit.
5. Mandating support for "Internet Explorer" specifically, or any other specific browser, is ludicrous. What version and why that one? What if IE is still as ass-backwards and broken next year or in five years as it is now? Why not mandate support for mobile browsers while we're at it? It's a reactionary policy with long-lasting consequences to a temporary problem that already has a solution. Also, just because most Internet users use IE does not mean that most UD players use it. Anecdotally, I'd actually say that Firefox is the most used by meta-gamers in UD, who are the most likely ones to be using the wiki. Oh, and on top of that, some of us don't even have IE, so it might even be impossible to test for it for certain users (e.g. Mac and Linux users).

I'm against the policy in general, since broken signatures are already covered under the current policy. This is merely a question of enforcement, not new rules being necessary. Also, if we want to cite browser statistics, let's look at something not outdated by a year and a half. For instance, look at this or this.

Anyway, for the short version of everything I said, there's no need for a new policy since the old one already covers any of these problems, IE sucks, the issue with the code should already be fixed, people using the old code should be shot/warned of sig violations, IE still sucks, everyone using the new code in their sigs must use image redirects as a fallback or else be warned of sig violations, I'm not aware of the new code being broken in any major browser from IE6 onwards, and IE still sucks. Badly. Does this handle everything? —Aichon— 18:04, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Oh, one additional point: none of that addresses the issues these sigs create on Yonn's talk page (that is, that in certain browsers using these sigs creates a lot of blank space at the bottom of his talk page due to the way that scroll boxes work). Personally, I'm inclined to think that even though they do have issues on his page, that the problem is his to deal with, just as he has been doing, since it's more a case of his page breaking the sigs than the sigs breaking his page. In fact...looking through some documentation, I think I just figured out a fix for his page that lets those sigs work on it, which just reinforces my point. Off to his talk page! —Aichon— 18:44, 16 October 2010 (BST)

I just used my talk as an example because it correlated with the sigs breaking in earlier IEs. :P Also, I feel that by qualifyign the terms "break" and "work" in the way that you did, you've made the argument massively biased. In my opinion, a signature is broken if it doesn't link as it should do. I'm not going to change my terminology just because doing so sounds better for your side of the argument. I'd also disagree that this policy is reactionary. Reactionary means a policy with conservative elements reversing or halting reform. I see no way in which this policy is reactionary. Unless you meant: it reacts to things, in which case I agree. It's reactign to a problem on the wiki with a simple solution. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this one Aichon.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:48, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Change "reform" to "progress" and your definition of reactionary is perfect for this. :/ 20:07, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Reform and progress are massively different things.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:14, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Yes, but the "conservative elements reversing or halting X" is apt. As Aich's pointed out, there's nothing borked any more, so curtailing a novel approach to things like sigs because of outdated and replaced software not working with it is backwards. 20:21, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Sorry, I should have been clearer with my definitions, since it was not my intent to bias anything. I wasn't talking about the signatures being broken or not working (which is a nonsense distinction, as you rightly point out). I was talking about the code being broken or not working. These are terms that Rooster and I have been using for months in our talks to refer to the code in a technical manner, as the conversation he linked clearly shows. I just wanted to get everyone else on board with using the correct definitions to describe the various problems we're describing, that way we didn't argue over something we actually agree on (and I think you and I agree mostly, though you don't seem to have realized it yet :P).

Anyway, if you apply those terms to the signatures themselves, then yes, of course you're correct, since a sig with code that is not working is almost always a broken signature (with one important exception). The reason why we need the distinction between the code being broken or not working is because we have four possible scenarios that need to be dealt with, and we can't distinguish between #1-3 without those definitions:

1. The code is broken, so the signature is broken.
2. The code is not working (i.e. it does nothing noticeable), and image redirects are not used, so the signature is broken too.
3. The code is not working (i.e. it does nothing noticeable), but image redirects are used, so the signature is acceptable.
4. The code is working, so the signature is fine.

I'm saying that #1 is already wrong according to the existing policies. Nobody should be running into #1 however, unless they are using the old code in their sigs, which they should not be doing. I am also saying that #2 is against existing policies, since we know that the code does not work in IE6 and IE7, and image-only sigs with no redirects are already against policy. So, basically, if we run into #1 or #2, we just need to enforce existing policy to handle the problem.

Where I draw the line, however, is with #3, which I believe is perfectly fine, since it behaves the same as an image-only sig using image redirects (e.g. Iscariot's sig). And #4 should be fine as well, since it breaks none of the existing policies, nor does it show up oddly for any of the major browsers.

As for "reactionary", thanks for catching that. I misused the term (as a quick check of the dictionary would have shown me if I had looked). What I meant is that it's a knee-jerk reaction to the situation (i.e. your second interpretation of what I meant). And yes, it's reacting to a problem on the wiki, but the solution is unnecessary, since the wiki already has policies in place to handle this situation. We just need people to enforce the existing rules, not create additional rules that complicate things unnecessarily. —Aichon— 20:39, 16 October 2010 (BST)

The reactionary thing is much a case of people stupidly naming a word. I only know because I made the same mistake the other week in history. :P I'd also agree with your analysis of which of the above points constitutes a broken sig, but I'd say we do need this policy, because it means that we codify what we already have to clarify another circumstance which sigs need to abide - they need to work for everyone (or the majority). This doesn't just cover click, it covers any future issue where one browser is at a disadvantage.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:24, 16 October 2010 (BST)

And that's where you and I disagree, apparently over what policies are meant to be. While you say that we need a policy to "codify what we already have to clarify another circumstance which sigs need to abide", I say that that is the job of precedents. We always use precedents to clarify future situations, not policy. Policy is used to change the rules, precedents are used to clarify them, and this, as you say, is a case of clarification. Otherwise, if we did make a policy of it, you either need to name a specific browser or else use a vague phrase such as "all major browsers" or "most people". In the former case, the problem is that the policy will be outdated and a burden in short order. In the latter, it adds nothing to the spirit of the policy or what we can enforce, while complicating the policy with loopholes and room for lawyering (e.g. you have to define "major browser" or "most people" otherwise someone will worm their way around the rules, and defining them opens up even more problems). Either of those situations is already covered by the current policy as a result of precedent that exists or will exist thanks to future rulings. —Aichon— 22:59, 16 October 2010 (BST)

I completely disagree with that. Case Law / Precedent's job is to interpret policy. If it does, it can become biased and unfair, especially when one is decided by 7 or 8 people and the other is decided by an actual embodiment of the community. This can be counteracted by setting forth what rulings should be made in policy. In this case, that would be as simple as establishing what browsers should be affected (see above for an assumption of IE, FF, Chrome and Safari, maybe opera) and then adding a line saying they should be considered. Saying that we shouldn't make a policy on something because it's handled by precedent is stupid. In an ideal world, all law should be codified, and I don't see why this should be any different. The ultimate difference being this - anybody is free to divulge from precedent (unless we enter the stupid assumption where we say precedent says we can't break from precedent) if they're the highest authority. Since we only have one authority, it makes absolute sense to codify any rules possible and prevent any degree of corruption possible.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:45, 21 October 2010 (BST)

Who's Signitures are at fault?

I'm trying to figure out who's sigs this is aimed at. Like, is mine ok? -Dezonus- ^(talk) 22:40, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Yours is fine. If you want an example of what's wrong see User:Misanthropy/Sig - It uses the floating link code without the underlying page redirects for the images. You don't use the code, so you're fine.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:43, 16 October 2010 (BST)

It's aimed at signatures that have an image redirect. For example...

 

. Note that clicking the image will redirect to my User page instead of the image page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:47, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Except it doesn't.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:50, 16 October 2010 (BST)

What? It doesn't redirect? It seems to redirect for me in both IE and Firefox. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:54, 16 October 2010 (BST)

You need to do actual image redirects (e.g. #REDIRECT User:Axe Hack) on the image pages, Axe, for earlier versions of IE. The fancy code only works in IE8+ and the other major browsers. —Aichon— 22:59, 16 October 2010 (BST)

I have IE7 (Code doesn't work) and IE6 (Splits on to multiple lines) as well as Safari (Everything works), so I'm stuck with the annoying situation that I know what everything should look like, it just always looks wrong. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:15, 16 October 2010 (BST)

IE6 does split to multiple lines? Drat. I had hoped we had fixed that with the changes made for IE7. I can't test IE6 myself, since I don't have access to a copy of it at all, but I can probably toss in some more changes to the code to make it play nice with IE6 (i.e. make it do nothing at all in IE6). That said, IE6 market share is down below 4% last I checked, and declining rapidly (plus, most of it is attributable to legacy work computers, not home users), so the point may be moot. If you think it's worth looking into though, I'd be willing to do it for you, Yonn. :) —Aichon— 00:00, 17 October 2010 (BST)

I think it's IE6. Could be IE5, but I doubt it. It's really not a bother, considering that computer's completely fucked anyway. Youtube is stuck on Chinese, I can't watch any media content and adobe deleted itself. :P I'm getting a laptop in January, and then I'll have a better browser than all of you combined.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:03, 17 October 2010 (BST)

Requirement for Checking

I agree with the principle that signatures shouldn't break common browsers (for some definition of common). But I think it unrealistic to require, in a hobby setting, that this be checked in advance. For instance I have no easy access to Internet Explorer either at home or at work (Macs in both places). Could it be reworded to something that suggested that any user whose signature broke a common browser was expected to fix the problem quickly once informed of the fact? Rather than having them obliged to check in advance. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 17:00, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I believe that's the way it would have to be worded to have any chance of passing, since the current policies regarding signatures work in that fashion (i.e. you get notified of the problem and have one week to fix it before being taken to A/VB for it). If they tried to make it something you had to check in advance lest you be taken to A/VB, there's no way it would pass as a policy. That'd be WAY too draconian, even for most of the people supporting the idea in general. —Aichon— 20:59, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I agree. I assumed it would just be adding the bolded line (or a variant discussed above) to what needs to be fixed in sigs, and wouldn't change procedure at all.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:18, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Yep, just that, "If your sig fails to properly display in a common browser, you will be asked to change it." I don't think anyone would refuse. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:23, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Refuse to change it if it were a policy? Nope. Refuse to support the policy? Yes. "Properly display" is too vague for a policy, as is "common browser". —Aichon— 23:12, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Common browser is defined above, as I've told you several times. The discussion reached a consensus of IE, FF, Safari and chrome.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:21, 23 October 2010 (BST)

And I'll repeat that defining it as those browsers is a bad idea (they may be the common ones today, but Chrome was just a few weeks old two years ago and now it's at 9%, while IE was at 75% two years ago and is now down to 60% (and let's not even talk about the differences between IE versions, since they swung even more wildly, and IE is the only one that will ever be likely to cause us problems anyway), so who knows what will be common five years from now?) and would contend that no consensus has been reached at all. This idea is still a non-issue for a problem that has already been solved with the hope that it will solve future non-issues which are less and less likely to occur in the future as browsers get better. I still see no merit in this idea at all. All I've heard is this straw man argument that there may one day be another similar issue and we need a policy to deal with that eventuality, which I believe is also not correct. —Aichon— 23:33, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Hate to call you out on using wrong terminology again, but that's not what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is stipulating that somebody's argument is something else, which nobody's done (other than you claiming that my argument was strawman, in itself being a strawman argument). All I've done is responded to your point of "let's not have a policy because we don't need it" by showing that if this policy had been in place originally, the massive amounts of problems for people's browsers wouldn't have occured, and I foresee that it's likely to in the future. Arbitrarily saying that there's no reason is just argumentively defending your own code when this issue isn't entirely about your code and stems to a much larger issue of people having signatures which don't work for everybody when signatures are meant to link back to the user who wrote the comment.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:25, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Dangit, Yonn, stop knocking over my straw men! I like using terms I clearly don't understand (note: please do keep calling me on it if I do it, since I'd rather be corrected than be left uncorrected). >_< Anyway, classifying it as "massive amounts" is an overstatement, I'd say, given that not a single person ever took action as they were supposed to by notifying DDR or Mis of the signature issue in an official capacity. The closest anyone came was RHO when he commented on something tangentially related here. DDR fixed the problem immediately, and Mis similarly changed his signature after he was reminded of the issue, which is the way things have worked up until now and the way they are supposed to work. I'm gonna post a quick summary of my logic in just a sec though... —Aichon— 23:09, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Hmmm. I see what you mean. There definitely needs to be more focus on the actual problem- that being smartarses like Me and Mis making imagesigs and such that are temperamental and can fuck up pages or a conversation's continuity. Realistically, in practice, having those 4 browsers as a benchmark and only calling out users who have horrible page breakers as sigs is how this would be used, much like the sig policy of today where leniency is given for sigs that bend the rules but don't specifically hurt anybody. Can't say it'll fix the problem or be something we need, though. Besides, if your list of browsers and their lifespan is the problem we can always update the policy as stuff progresses? -- LEMON #1 14:49, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Common browser can be defined in terms of usage percentages and linked to one of the various usage statistics providers (listed [2]. I'd suggest "more than 1% share" would be a sensible place to set the bar. "Display properly" can be defined as "obey the other points in the signature policy" (in this case the requirement that a sig not be more than 14 pixels high was broken when viewed using IE). Purple Cat ~ DHPD 15:31, 24 October 2010 (BST)

I understand the point made, I kinda agree that the definition is a bit too broad. But if we're not going to enforce an issue like this through a new policy, are the sysops going to enforce it? I mean, the old sig policy is inadequate in the sense that for example DDR's and Mis's old sigs were in breach of the signature policy on one browser but not the other. If I had at the time asked them to change it, and if they denied brought to A/VB, what would the ruling be then? I still think this is an issue, currently unresolved. We don't precedent, nor do we have a policy for it. What then?

Either you make a policy (law) or you let the sysops decide on case per case basis. The latter bring other problems. As others have pointed out, there is an entire jungle of different browsers, with different versions, with different usage rates, and all these factors are constantly changing. I reckon it will tough to decide what is and what is not allowed then. --Thadeous Oakley 16:03, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Logic

Here's the logic I'm using.

1. Mis' and DDR's old signatures were broken in a major browser, but not in all browsers.
2. Based on my earlier 4-point breakdown and the ensuing discussion, there seems to be agreement that the old sigs were against policy, despite being broken only in some browsers.
3. Combining #1 and #2, we can say that signatures which are broken in a major browser are already against policy, due to the fact that Mis' and DDR's sigs were against policy (that they were not called on it appropriately is a separate matter).
4. Thus, we have no need for a redundant policy which reiterates that same idea.

Regarding #2, I say we have that agreement since the discussion shifted to the policy being necessary to deal with future situations, rather than dealing with the current situation. As Yonn put it, "we do need this policy, because it means that we codify what we already have to clarify another circumstance which sigs need to abide," (emphasis mine). Call me on the straw man if it is one, Yonn (I think I used that right this time :P), but it just sounds to me like we agree that this current situation was against policy, and by the logic I just offered, if the current situation was against policy, then any future ones would be as well.

I understand the argument that the policy is not just for this situation, but if the problems are of a similar enough nature that they would fall under the new policy, then they are already of a similar enough nature that they would be handled by the existing policy. Basically, it's unnecessary for everything I've already said here, as well as because A) the gun is being jumped by going straight to policy instead of confirming that the current system is broken, B) the current system does work, as evidenced by the recent situation and the fact that it was resolved without issue (and also despite the fact that no one gave it a chance by properly notifying DDR or Mis), C) adding additional redundant policies just adds room for lawyering and legal loopholes, and D) we should leave the ambiguity of unforeseen and unexpected future situations to the judgement of people at that time, rather than writing policies founded on our ignorance of what will take place in the future.

Basically, what it all boils down to is that there is no added value and lots of room for issues by adding this new policy. If anyone can cite an example of a fictional future situation where the current policy is insufficient and the new one would handle things, I think it'd go a long way to convincing me that there is some value in the policy. Otherwise, it's redundant, as I showed, and the fact that we dealt with the current situation means that we already have a ready-made solution for any future situations, without a need for new policy. —Aichon— 23:58, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Okay then.--Thadeous Oakley 00:13, 25 October 2010 (BST)

No seriously, your definition of a "quick summary" is beyond any "logic" whatsoever. I did read everything but I hope you aren't offended that my reply is a tad bit shorter. Basically, I agree with the point that this may indeed be unnecessary and could be handled better through separate cases in the future should it arise again. Kinda leaning on withdrawing this policy, does anyone wish to add stuff?--Thadeous Oakley 00:15, 25 October 2010 (BST)

The four points were the "quick summary". The rest was bonus reading. :P —Aichon— 05:24, 25 October 2010 (BST)

No, you did misunderstand me (It isn't strawman because being strawman is intentionally doing it to undermine somebody). What I was saying is that it's currently covered. It isn't covered by policy, it's covered by precedent and handling assumptions. Since precedent and handling is where there's a massive amount of variance and room for loopholes, a policy is a way of alleviating that, not the other way around. As soon as a policy is in place, the judiciary are restricted to interpreting that policy, and can't do whatever they want. An example of something not covered by current policy would be (much as in this situation) when a link appears for one group of people but not another. At the moment, there's a defence of "it's functional in Browser A" as there's no coverage for all browsers. Considering signatures have been a prime area of wikilawyering in the past (e.g. Iscariot's yellow I), it seems prudent to set up a situation where there is less room to manipulate the rules. This policy impliments the force that it should work in all browsers (or you get your 7 day warning as standard (I presume)). Therefore, everybody would be able to follow the links, not just those on certain browsers. Good enough example?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:19, 25 October 2010 (BST)

I was actually looking for a counterexample that took into account the assumptions I made in those four points. If we go with your assumption that the current policy does not cover the current case, then the counterexamples are trivial to manufacture, which wouldn't have been causing me issues. If we instead work with my assumption that the policy is sufficient for the current case, you should be able to see why I had trouble imagining a counterexample and why I asked for one.

Anyway...honestly, I'm tired of arguing this with you and I don't like arguing with you either (I much prefer agreeing). It's a dumb thing to argue over, you and I aren't convincing each other (despite the fact that I'd wager we both think our sides are obviously correct), I think I've already managed to piss everyone else off with my walls of text and misused words, and I just don't want to spend a minute more on it when we could be doing better things with our time. I'm not conceding, but I am suggesting we just agree to disagree. Friends? —Aichon— 05:24, 25 October 2010 (BST)