User talk:Athaenara/Gallery

[edit] Misc. notes

The first signature in this gallery was SonicChao's. In a chance encounter on the channel #wikipedia-en on freenode IRC he happened to mention that peer pressure was forcing him to stop using it. At the time (November 2006), the idea of a gallery was just beginning to form in my mind—I had previously seen just a few memorable signatures, including Elaragirl's Shrieking Harpy.

It seemed to me then, and it seems to me still, so tragic when humourless, dismissive, and possibly far less creative peers insist that signatures must be bland. It's like telling people they shouldn't wear that shirt, or that hat, or dye their hair aquamarine or fuchsia if they wish. Athænara ✉ 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(Postscript: Of course, when signatures become outrageous distractions in talk page discussions, there can be justice in approbrium.) — Æ. ✉ 07:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case in point

In re "humourless" and "dismissive" etc. (see above) the following guest book comment stands out: "This only encourages people to create even more garish and obnoxious signatures—something we could do without." — Athænara ✉ 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you get from my expressing an aesthetic opinion regarding garish signatures—and I'm not applying that to all of the sigs on the page, but certainly several fall into this category—to labeling me as "humourless and dismissive". Your sig BTW, is an example of expressing yourself without creating an eyesore on a page. This is especially an issue with blocky sigs that set the background color when the same sig appears a dozen or more times on a talk page. I would think someone with an obviously refined sense of aesthetics would appreciate this distinction instead of being dismissive of the observation. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My feelings were hurt, I think. As in the statement of the gallery's mission on my main user page, I have intentionally given room to "the outrageously genre-breaking" in the range of work included. I must admit that I'm far less hurt now, since your flattering attribution, and I thank you, very much, for that.

I agree that some do have the effect you mentioned. I think, too, that some of the more garish ones—without grace or much in the way of intricate structure—tend to be used less over time because the personality of the user is not as invested in the signature itself to the extent that it is in the finer ones, and owners of the latter tend to save those for special occasions rather than everyday discussions. (Sometimes I should just put a sock in it.) — Athænara ✉ 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not an autograph book

I don't disapprove of autograph books IFF they're maintained by actively contributing editors of the encyclopedia, which is what comes first for all of us, or should. I understand (I think) the disdain some editors, including some administrators, have for them—from a certain point of view, they seem to be a waste of time generated by users who aren't actually becoming better encyclopedists.

The now-deleted Category:Wikipedians who collect signatures of other Wikipedians might have survived if those who populated it had been in a position to defend their other contributions. It may be a sign of only marginal integration into the encyclopedia editing community here that they were not aware that its deletion was being discussed: in one full week, not one Keep opinion was offered.

I did not join that category myself, because (1) my gallery isn't an autograph book (all the others were) and (2) I must admit I too share the impression that the autograph collectors for the most part did not seem to be contributing a great deal to the encyclopedia. I really wish not to be unfair, and surely it can't be true of all of them, but their lack of participation in the deletion discussion does support that view. — Athænara ✉ 07:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)