Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive3

Appearance and Colour

I believe these rules are outdated and should be changed:
1. Do not use color and bold formatting on the same text.
2. You are allowed to use one color for each of your links.

I think number one should be removed altogether, I see no reason for it. I think number two should be changed to something like

• You are not allowed to use more than 2 colours for each of your links.

This stops rainbowing but allows some link variation. Lyra Valo 12:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care bout the bolding change, but the change you suggeted for the other rule isn't the right way to go about it. Like I commented on your talk page, your sig is worse now that you got around the policy by adding additional links. I think we should limit the number of color tags that are allowed ins the signature instead of this old and unworking restriction. Maby something like "You may use 3 color tags in the signature code". -- (gem / talk) 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I had to create more links so my sig didn't violate the policy, this was completely unessacery and didn't change the look of my sig at all. This illustrates the redundancy of this rule. I think your suggestion for limiting colour tags is a good one but do you have a suggestion as to how many would be allowed? Lyra Valo 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I had the number 3 in there but it got lost somehow. Added the number in the above post. :D -- (gem / talk) 14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is something I would like to avoid by adding a maximal code length.. Maybe "You are not allowed to use more than 100 characters not counting the characters you normally have for your default signature." This would avoid a problem with longer user names but limit the length of a signature. poke | talk 14:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe "... not counting the characters you need to display your own username". poke | talk 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"2. You are allowed to use one color for each of your links." + "I had to create more links so my sig didn't violate the policy" - the line means that if you link to your talk and user page, they may be coloured differently, not that you get permission to use one colour code per link in your signature. Adding the different links to your signature wasn't correcting the violation of the policy, but it would have if you'd linked Lyra to your user page and made it black and Valo to your talk page and made it maroon. - BeX 15:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, it says you can have one colour for each link and so more links=more colours. Admittedly perhaps I cheated the system but what I changed my sig to completely complied with the rules. To be honest I don't see how having a sig that takes up 2 lines or whatever makes editing harder. You don't need to read everything in the edit box, you read it before ou go to edit then just add your comment on the end, why should the length of sigs in the edit box have anything to do with it? I think the visual appearance of the colours is much more important that the code used to create it.Lyra Valo 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually in the original dicussion of this policy it was agreed on that the code lenght is one of the more important things. -- (gem / talk) 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Lyra Valo 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because when u have a bunch of users replying to each other in very short sentences, you'll find long signatures cluttering up the talk page edit. "Signature length" section above talks a bit about this. And to answer your original question, the colour restriction came about to prevent unnecessarily long and disturbing rainbow-coloured sigs. -- ab.er.rant 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

@Lyra: It means if you have two different links you can colour them differently if you wish. Not that if you can count two links you can use two colours. This was wrong: Lyra Valo. This would have been right Lyra Valo. The point of the colours is that it shows that they are different links. And btw, you had bold html and wiki tags for some reason. o_O - BeX 03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I copy pasted the wrong thing anyway. ~_~ - BeX 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

why do you need different colours anyway...? ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Colourz Rulez! But anyways, I will, at least for the moment change my sig. I am undecided on what I think of the 100 character limit, but I still think the no bold+colour rule should be removed and I think Gem's suggestion of 3 colour tags per sig is reasonable. Lyra Valo 09:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

i think 3 tags limit should be enough... - Y0_ich_halt 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to get back from sidetracks and to make this clear. Proposed stuff that people seem to agree with:

• Remove the limit of bold + color
• Add a 'only 3 color tags' limit

Post your accept/reject below please. -- (gem / talk) 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Accept-Lyra Valo 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reject or Decline or whatever you wanna call it ~ Kurd 15:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please also explain why Kurd? - anja 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, especially since Kurd actually breaks the rule that we want to remove. -- (gem / talk) 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

xD - I don't agree with the second one as I rather would see a code limit instead to really prevent abuse of the signature.. poke | talk 17:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Accept. No reason needed — Skakid9090 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Accept br12 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanations please guys. I didn't mean to start a vote. :D -- (gem / talk) 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Accept - the bold + colour rule is just, imo, plain silly. Bold and black really has no difference to bold and colour, just the fact that it sticks out more. And thats what bold, italics, colour, images, and fonts are all about - to make the signature stick out against the body text on talk pages. As for the second one, the current rule is too strict. If you can have one colour for each of the links, and more than 1 link in a signature, why can't you have more than one colour for just 1 link? Also, as Lyra Valo showed above, someone might add more links in order to get different colours into the same sig, thus cluttering up the edit pages. br12 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Accept also, for the same reasons. In fact, the whole reason I'm campaigning for wider images is because the point of signatures is to be distinctive. (AUNTMOUSIE under protest) 03:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

accept, too. i think tainbowy sigs are solved that way. and what would ppl wanna do to make their sigs that long with this limit? - Y0_ich_halt 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While everyone is discussion this policy, I feel the need to bump Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments/Draft 070731. Please work with that version when discussing changes, it is much cleaner and more readible. --Xeeron 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

THat version already has that rule removed iirc. - BeX 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold & colour at the same time

I propose that we remove the rule about bold and colour at the same time. For the longest time, I didn't notice my signature was both in colour & had bold in it, & I don't think anyone really noticed either. I first realized this when it was pointed out by Ereanor at User_talk:Ereanor#GWW:SIGN. In short, I don't think we need the section that says Do not use color and bold formatting on the same text. I've had this signature pretty much since I registered here when this site was first announced officially & know one seemed to notice nor care, right? I've also seen quite a few other members violating this rule from just a quick glance on this page alone (Kurd, Big Hank, etc)--§ Eloc § 16:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the above discussion. It's bee nagreed on already. -- (gem / talk) 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sweet.--§ Eloc § 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

卍's

Manji's allowed in signatures or are they a little to close to the Swastica for people?--卍 Eloc 卍 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that, considering it is a swastika, simply facing the opposite way to the Nazi logo, it's a bit offensive. --77.98.23.140 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone offended by Manji's needs to get over theirself. - HeWhoIsPale 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't offensive per se and it's not prohibited by policy, but I'd recommend not using it since alot of people might be offended/feel bad about it. It's too close to the svastika, in my eyes. - anja 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

and many ppl don't know it's the indian symbol for luck. - Y0_ich_halt 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also the Japenese symbol for Buddhist Temple. Anyways, the whole point of this was to maybe add this to the policy to not use symbols which some people may find offenive in your signature. I also have it like this as it's Rememberance Day in Canada & it kind of seemed suitable for the day.— 卍 Eloc 卍 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

but that's not the symbol for o-tera o.o - Y0_ich_halt 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

O-tera?— 卍 Eloc 卍 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

hai. - Y0_ich_halt 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

hai? XD— 卍 Eloc 卍 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

o-tera means buddhist temple, hai means yes, and that's not the japanese symbol for busshist temple XD - Y0_ich_halt 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] Dam you Wikipedia! You screwed me over again! — 卍 Eloc 卍 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm curios, why did you had to pick that symbol? ~ Kurd 20:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are pretty much 2 symbols imo that represent Remembrance day. The Swastica & the poppy. I believe that the Swastica can represent all of WWII, while the poppy represents only a single battle. I used the reverse side as I don't want to be offending every single person here. Don't worry, tommorow I'm changing it. — 卍 Eloc 卍 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WWI. br12 ~ 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Shows that I don't know my History. Thank god I'm in History class right now! XD — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to a laptop or something throughout the day lol? You seem to edit all the time :P br12 ~ 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have a laptop, but that's at home. I have Computer class in the morning, so I edit here while working on my Pascal programming. In 3rd period, I left and went to the library. And now (4th period), I am at the computer lab "researching" for an essay lol. — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GWW is blocked in my school under 'Games' :( br12 ~ 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked here (most likely from me as I believe I'm the only one who plays GW in my school or uses GWW), but we had a substitute today, so none of the blocks were on. — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There must be something I don't have installed because Eloc's sig is just ? Eloc ? (two question marks) for me. Some language pack I need installed or something? --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

I'm not sure about that..it must be a language pack. — 卍 Eloc 卍 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just go to Microsoft.com and D/L the language files for "German (nazi)" or "Hindu (old)". --Xeeron 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, the symbol is associated with one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, and is used by a number of modern western hate groups. On the other hand, the symbol was misappropriated, and treating the symbol as if it belongs to hate groups sends a message that they can steal other cultures' symbols and get away with it. I think the simplest fair option would be to ban all IRL religious symbols from signatures. -- Gordon Ecker 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I posted this section..

Also, I can't believe they have a specific language pack called German (Nazi). — ク Eloc 貢 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see why anyone would need to put a religious symbol in their signature, if they're proud of their religion they are free to make a note of it on their userpage, not on every page they post on. This also solves the problem of swastikas, misinterpreted or not, without offending anyone (I hope). Lyra Valo 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people would be more offended as it looks like a swastica. I don't think they're so much again the religous meaning behind it. — ク Eloc 貢 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but it is a Buddhist, Hindu and Jain religious symbol, so banning the character would be banning a Buddhist, Hindu and Jain religious symbol, and I don't think we should single out specific real-world religious symbols. -- Gordon Ecker 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm detector beeping loudly. About religious symbols (and the swastikas), I don't think we should forbid them. I see nothing wrong with someone having a cross, crecent or whatever else in their signature. That goes also for the swastika. So people want to show they support the regime of a mass-murdering bastard? Let them. The easier to spot fanatics are, the easier they are to ignore of make fun of. --Xeeron 12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

http://guildwars.com/support/legal/rulesofconduct.php - BeX 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, I suppose they would be allowed as they would be protected under GWW:NPA, right? — ク Eloc 貢 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"might be offended/feel bad about it. It's too close to the svastika, in my eyes" then toughen them up and teach them something. Treating it like it's taboo is an insult to the true meaning of the symbol and offensive to the people it has meaning to. If someone has a problem with it they can be directed to this or any other conversation which explains it's not the Nazi symbol and they become more aware of the world they live in and less ignorant. Its positive use is a favour to the world and should be encouraged not treated with fear. It's fine if Eloc wants to drop it, his perrogative, but it is also fine if he wants to keep it. Dancing Gnome 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also do nothing unless someone is clearly abusing the symbol, which is all we can do under the current policy. The downside is that some people will be offended. -- Gordon Ecker 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we ban pointy white hats? Cause if I recall correctly 99% of all commonly represented symbols were stolen from an innocent source by people who then did bad things and changed what people associated the meanings of them with. If you're offended by a swastica, read some Dan Brown. Armond 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the best idea for a punishment I've ever heard, Armond. Maybe we could get that down in policy somewhere? LordBiro 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any negative effects...? Any opposed...? TOO BAD, DAN BROWN IS JUST THAT AWESOME. Armond 08:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we stop trying to preempt potential problems that might occur? If someone wants to use a religious symbol, go ahead; as long as that user does not break any other policy, it's fine. Unless there is such a problem, let's not bother. This will just degenerate into another Guild Wars Wiki:No profanity and the likes. Nothing good will come of it. And personally... it's just a little 19px icon... is it really something that someone will get worked up about? -- ab.er.rant 13:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And the RoC get ignored again! - BeX 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, unless ArenaNet steps in and officially declares that this wiki needs to comply by it. Aside from the offensive content rules, we're already violating it by hosting mods for the GW client and for documenting the existence of exploitable bugs... :/ -- ab.er.rant 14:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied to that on your talk page Bex, since I dont want to drag this off-topic. --Xeeron 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recording IP Address

Why does the wiki record my IP address and then post it on a page for everyone to see? I don't want the world to know what my IP is.... ~ Anon--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

Its logged so we can contact you or ban you.If you don't want it to be logged, simply register ~ Kurd 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, no one can see the IP of a registered user since we don't have the ChekUser addon installed.. -- (gem / talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to assign a random number to each ip when they post, and the number is placed on he page when they sign. That way people can still be banned and they retain anonymity without being forced into making an account. ~ Anon--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

You get more anonymity by creating an account. It doesn't take long either, so I don't see why people choose not to make accounts. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer if it could be changed to place a random number, like the one assigned to a user when they create their account (although it's not random). This way people don't need to create one, can still be banned and the wiki doesn't contribute to making their computer less secure by posting their ip address all over the internet waiting from someone to find it. ~ Anon--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

It can cannot and will not be changed. You would have to change probably the complete structure of MediaWiki, and that is not a job for us, we are just using this software and it is much more helpful to have IP addresses than simple numbers imo. If you don't want to have your IP address listed here, register or stop contributing. poke | talk 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The way you wrote that looks like this; it can be changed and will not be changed. I assume you meant can not be changed, which si unfortunate. Hopefully if they ever redesign this they won't overlook something so important next time. ~ Anon--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

The fact is, anysite you go onto, your IP adress is logged. There's no getting around it. If you're so worried about your IP adress, go use a proxy or something. — ク Eloc 貢 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no reason to do something like this. Wikis are to provide information and give each contributor a right to own his own contributions. This is only possible via IP. Giving an IP another ID simply provides a number <-> IP filter which ends up in the same (Note that an IP is a number as well) poke | talk 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP also helps fighing vandalism better than a random number. If we get hit by a vandal whos IP keeps changing, but only within a small IP range we can block the whole range. This has happened a few times and has saved a lot of trouble. If you want anonymity, you can create an account with a random number as it's name. -- (gem / talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Or use a proxy. --71.229.204.25 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See W:Wikipedia:Why create an account? Most of what it says there applies here, since it's due to the way MediaWiki is written. -- ab.er.rant 00:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And just to make sure no one misunderstands, non-registered users are allowed more editing freedom on this wiki than on Wikipedia. Here they can start new pages and move pages just like registered users. I'm not sure about uploading, but I would presume that you don't need to log in for that either. -- (gem / talk) 07:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you need to be registered to upload. -- Gordon Ecker 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. :) -- (gem / talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Compliance

Should this need to be made by an admin? I think it has been demonstrated many times on the wiki average users will claim a policy means something when in fact it doesn't, so non admin requests carry little weight. Anon

What are you talking about? poke | talk 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Anon means that only admins should warn users about breaking a policy. Which is, like, a bad idea. For one, there aren't enuogh admins to do this. -- br12 • (talk) • 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) A request can be done by anyone, imo. If there's disagreement about the violation, bring it to the attention of others (which mostly also include admins, but it's no must). Not until a block would be warranted, admin intervention is really needed. - anja 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have always viewed Sysops as sort of the people who administer the ban after they have been warned by the average users. Wikis are formed so that pretty much everyone is equal in a way. Everyone can edit as logn as they are contrbuting positively, and anyone can give out warnings, just as long as someone warns them. Wait...did that make any sense? — ク Eloc 貢 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Eloc. Not really.... Well it did sorta br12 • (talk) • 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it's the community that makes decisions, gives warnings etc, and the admins are only special in the way that they can actually enforce bans, deletions, etc. -- (gem / talk) 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several example of where a user has misunderstood a major part of a policy. If these people misunderstand something and then warn something about something which is in fact not against a policy, this discredits the current system of "warnings". I'm not saying giving a ban for someone who warns someone else but I am saying for a warning to be considered in administrative action, particularly notice should be placed on that user's talk page explaining the violation and requesting compliance. Failure to comply would warrant a subsequent warning notice on that user's talk page. Obviously if people are placing warnings for violation, which are in fact not violations, some people will not take these warning seriously. For this reason, a warning which is to be considered to determine admin action against a user needs to be given by someone with some kind official status and credibility. I have been given numerous requests for compliance for etiquette which appear the same as a friendly warning. You can see where the conflict lies, whether you agree with the etiquette or not. Anon

(Reset indent) I think this needs to be discussed again. As was stated somewhere else, i feel "enforcing" the policy is not something a common user should do. At worst, it should be in the same line as 1rr, where the first an second warning about failure to adhere should NOT be done by the same user. Otherwise, we end with a case like Eloc/Liche where a simple warning derivates in a verbal war.

In short, may i suggest adding a small note like "If the user fails to comply within one week after the first warning, the case should be notified on the admin noticeboard for a second warning". This way, we make sure the same user is not the one to notify twice (which may lead the other part to misunderstand the intentions), and we already have the notification in place in case the second warning is ignored.--Fighterdoken 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

*points to signature* Should this kind of thing be acceptable? It's, in a sense, a link to my userpage, and I, probably like a number of others, check said user page more often than the one on this wiki. (Also, why are we not letting people make internal links except to three specific pages...?)

While I'm at it, what if I changed it to [http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Armond Armond]? Armond 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Should it be allowed? Maybe. Is it allowed? No. "Your signature can only contain links to your user page, your talk page, or your contributions page. Any other internal or external links are not allowed in your signature." Could you change it until the community decides to amend the policy? —Tanaric 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is kinda a call to have it changed. *Shrug* I can change it in the meantime, I guess.

Of course, as I type this I think of how there was a "fad" at the founding of PvX to have your sig link to your GW page. It was kinda annoying, perhaps because they were all disguised as internal links. Armond 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signatures are imo to contact the user - if necessary - on his/her talk page. If the signature links to an external page or another wiki, that doesn't help as I would contact a user here on this wiki not anywhere else as the topic I want to talk about belongs to this wiki.. poke | talk 10:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Armond, 99% of what you want to achieve with that signature can be achived (without breaking policy) by placing a prominent link to your PvXwiki user page on your GWW userpage and directing your sig to your GWW userpage. --Xeeron 11:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I am not asking if that signature was acceptable, but rather suggesting a change in policy. As of yet, I see but one comment that discusses my proposal. Armond 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a change to policy to allow external links could be ok (and could be widely abused) but I still think a requirement of a clear link to talk/user page on this wiki should stay. Kinda the same reasons as poke mentions - anja 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If we allowed external links, I'd say limit it to other wiki userpages (or someplace they can be easily contacted - not a link to their favorite webcomic or the like). -Auron 11:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be unreasonable <external link removed>. --67.159.54.22 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the shock site link. -- Gordon Ecker 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so let me rephrase that: Since 99% of what external links to other wiki user pages do can be achived by a link on your user page and since general external links are bound to be abused as anon so nicely demonstrated a few lines up, I disagree with changing the policy. --Xeeron 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards an oppose for the change. I don't currently see any harm in linking to user pages on other wikis, but then again, I'm not one who would think of ways to abuse it. It just might open the door for potential problems. By allowing external links, we would then need to define exactly what sort of links we'd allow. Also, is it possible to hide the onMouseOver url of the external link? -- ab.er.rant 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think allowing this gives any benefit that can't be achieved by using your user page anyway. - BeX 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Your signature can only contain links to your user page, your talk page, or your contributions page. Any other internal or external links are not allowed in your signature." — So ya, it's not your userpage, talkpage or contributions page on this wiki. — ク Eloc 貢 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc, once again, I was not asking if the signature was allowed, but rather suggesting a change in policy. That line has been cited twice.

Let me make this more clear: Why not amend the policy to allow a link to one's user or user talk page on any of PvXwiki, GuildWiki, or Guild Wars Wiki, but only one of them and not a combination? Armond 06:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

I don't want any links on this wiki to send me outside of the wiki unless it is very clear before I click on it that it will send me somewhere else. For this reason I oppose both redirects and allowing external links in a username. 58.110.136.10 07:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say there's a rather clear difference between a link that looks like this and one that looks like this, but that's me. And I suspect you'll find yourself in the minority, 58... Armond 07:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the colour's nearly identical, but the external link icon stands out. I think a requirement to include at least one link to the user and talk page and a restriction against external links to patently offensive material would be sufficient. -- Gordon Ecker 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just post those links on your userpage? Also, how would we contact you here on this GWW if your link is just an external link where some of the sysops here have no power. Like, lets say that you violated GWW:NPA and someone went to click on your signature. That would lead them to an external link where your personal attack would no longer apply. Wikis shouldn't have signatures linking to other wikis. Plain and simple. — ク Eloc 貢 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You would still have a talk page on this wiki wouldn't you? So that could be used to contact you in one of the events you mention Eloc. If the users GWW user talk page is not visited by them often (I would hope they'd visit it when they got the new message thing) then a note could be placed on the talk page of the other wiki directing them to their talk page here. I agree with Gordon on his suggestion but I don't see why a signature like this wouldn't work :
Lyra Valo On Guildwiki end of that sig, my actual one follows (to avoid confusion) Lyra Valo 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Four Tildes or Three?

The wiki policy just says encouraged way to sign your comments, by placing four tildes which implies etiquette and not an actual strict definition. So I can still sign with just three? Anon

Yeah, but it still would be very nice if you would sign with 4. poke | talk 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The timestamps give a discussion a timeline, particularly when a user inserts his comment in the middle of a talk section or to easily tell how long it's been since the last comment. -- ab.er.rant 02:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Raptors did the same thing... --Zinc 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes...he did...quickly! Ban him! :P — ク Eloc 貢 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

for what? - Y0_ich_halt

I was just joking about how everyone seems to think almost every user (new or old) is Raptors, and will find any possible chance to prove so (especially on Guildwiki) :P --Zinc 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ya, kinda xD - Y0_ich_halt 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Raph

Do you think this (--Raph Come get ur Ramen Noodles!) violates the GWW:SIGN? I refer to mainly the part of the Ramen Noodles. — ク Eloc 貢 06:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

at best concerning brightness imo. he should use a darker yellow. - Y0_ich_halt 16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

My proposal of this. Any objections? — ク Eloc 貢 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Easily recognizable" is still a bit wishy-washy xD. I think "Easily recognizable" should be defined in more detail before using it as a term in a policy. LunarEffect 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should downgrade this policy to a guideline. -- Gordon Ecker 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But more appropriately, we should extract the more subjective parts of it out into a guideline. -- ab.er.rant 02:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since others can't modify preferences, we need a bit of policy on this, setting max limits. But whitin that, yeah, most of it can and should be a guideline. Backsword 16:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows what brought this topic up: I had my signature as 0xLunarEffect. Eloc then informed me about the policy, that altered usernames have to be registered as a new account and redirected. I complied to his request obviously, but the policy only includes "shortened" usernames, mine was lengthened, so in theory, I wasn't doing anything wrong. This policy certainly has to be clarified. Check my Talk page to read the whole story. LunarEffect 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If one wants to be that fixated, it's simple: if you've registered a username, it's yours. Backsword 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But as of right now, it says "A shortened version of your username is allowed.". Adding 0x to the beggining of the signature isn't quite shortening it. It is lengthening it. Also, a couple of other users around here have been extending their signature. An example off the top of my head is Skakid. His current signature is Skakid HoHoHo, which currently violates the policy, but it isn't hurting anyone, so why not take my proposal? — ク Eloc 貢 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like the "HoHoHo" (especially as it's seasonal) poke | talk 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that was just an example, but sort of get what I mean? — † Eloc † 08:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I also think that you - for example - shouldn't have to register User:ク Eloc 貢 to be able to use that signature ;) Or should I register User:poke | talk then? poke | talk 14:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably =P I see there are some problems with this policy. All I can say is...its very unlikely someone called User:poke | talk or 0xLunarEffect registering, and even if someone does, the names links would still be leading to the right pages. Besides, its not less confusing if someone registered "Lunar Effect" and posted somewhere exactly after me. Names do cause confusion and I quite honestly see some flaws in this policy =) LunarEffect 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While this policy has it's problem, it's not quite that bad. It only demands that your signature contains your username, not that it consists of it. Backsword 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Change the damn thing to a guideline, stop bitching at random people about tiny details that don't matter in the long run. Problem solved. Armond 10:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Guideline won't work as well as a relaxed policy: Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments/Draft 20071226. -- ab.er.rant 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In my case, my complete name is Mithrán S. Arkanere (the middle name its another 6 letters but I never write in complete) but most people (specially young ladies that want my favors *wink* *wink* call me 'Mith'), I used 'Mithran' in GWWiki, but I don't know why I used MithranArkanere here, which is a bit long. I changed to my shortened name 'Mith' following the Policy as it was right then. "Do not cause confusion" it's a bit subjective, and "Must contain the name" it's almost useless if what you want is to shorten the signature. In the same way Williams can be called 'Bill' a shorter version should be allowed, as long as it¡s fully recognisable as part of the original name. In my case, people call me 'Mith' without ever telling them to do so, XD. MithTalk 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First Principles

As a newcomer, and as someone who has no intention of changing my sig from its default (and, imho best), configuration, I thought I'd throw in a perspective from "outside".

It seems to me that there are only really three criteria for a good sig: 1) It must not be disruptive (link to evil sites, trigger epileptic fit from strobing lights, looks like another users') 2) Link to the user's talk page so they can be contacted. 3) It shouldn't keep changing.

Nothing else matters. So long as a sig is distinctive, it doesn't matter if you can read the letters or not - what matters is the user is clearly identified by the link to their talk. Point 3 above is for clarity - sigs should consistently identify a user.

So I'd think a good policy should lay down those principles and that's it. It's really quite easy to see if they're followed, unlike complex rules on whether you can shorten a name if you redirect to it etc.Cassie 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all good and well... in a perfect universe. I recently returned back to GuildWiki and noticed how their less restricting policy had caused a huge number of sigs that are distracting and awfull even though the stuff that you said above is in the policy. The world is not perfect and neither are the users in the wiki, meaning that some people don't see some things as distracting even if they distract a huge number of other people. That's why we've ended up with a restricting policy such as this currently is. -- (gem / talk) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Under GuildWiki tradition, Gem, you as a sysop can legitimately demand those users you're speaking of to change their signatures to be less obnoxious. I exercised that discretion a fair few times during my stay there.

I support Cassie's suggestion, as long as sysops have the guts to mediate/administrate these principles when necessary.

—Tanaric 07:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly there's still this one big 'if'. It's clear that since the wiki is still not sure how sysops should act that they wont risk their position by forcing people to change their signature. The wiki needs a through change in the sysop situation before we can really remove any of the complex and unnecessary rules from many of the policies. -- (gem / talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do consider that these principles would make default signatures invalid. Backsword 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How so?

And Cassie, did you realise you started your new section right below where I proposed a change to this policy? :)-- ab.er.rant 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:) (back from hols) Yes, I was just trying to refocus discussion a bit. I think your new version is better than what is here, but still too many details. Gem's point about the current discretion available to sysops here is well made, though - though I think things are changing for the better.Cassie 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, because the default sig doesn't link to the user's talk page ^^ --Snograt 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm a little help please?

Hi im kinda new here and exactly HOW do i customize my signature, it doesn't realy say on the page, if you could help i would be gratefull. Thanks alot. The Forsaken One 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Easiest way is to edit a talk page (like this) just to check how other users' signatures are formatted. Upload a 19x19 image, if you like, use the formatting you've decided on from looking at others, put it in your nickname box in preferences, then make sure the Raw signatures (without automatic link) box is ticked, then save preferences. For example, my sig is '''[[User:Snograt|<span style="color:green">Snog</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Snograt|<span style="color:limegreen">rat</span>]]''[[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] --Snograt 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if you need help on what each individual part of that sig does, drop a note on my talk page :) --Snograt 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help:Signatures may be of some use :) -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot The Forsaken One 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol and duh! I think having a link to Help:Signatures on GWW:SIGN might be a good idea! Don't know where the best place for it would be, and it's a policy so it would need consensus. Or something. Uh, I hereby suggest it? Hum. --Snograt 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was on wiki for a couple months before I figured this out >_>- Vanguard 14:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Best placed as an "see also" link at the bottom. --Xeeron 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Section "How to sign": "Check out our help article for more information on how to sign." - anja 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh arse. Anja, you really should be my mom - you're always catching my stupid mistakes and being suitably affronted at my off-color jokes. <3 --Snograt 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, the link is rather unintuitive in the policy. This has been rectified in the near-finalised proposal. -- ab.er.rant 09:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update old signatures

It is not necessary, isn't it? It would be a hell of a job, and it would add a lot of unnecessary updates to the 'recent changes' list. (By the way, I hope you don't mid I copy so cheekily your sign style, gem, I found it much more attractive and I always wanted to put my star in my sig as you make with your gem) (Mith | Talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You need a couple of dashes too, to be a proper Gem clone ;) --Snograt 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also we don't need (and don't want) to update old signatures as it would make many watchlists highlighting every page for unnecessary edits. Just keep them (or edit them when you accidentally comment on that page) and it will be fine. poke | talk 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Use

So reading over the policy and perusing some of the archived material (yes, I try to be self-sufficient and RTFM before I ask for help) leads me to believe that if I want to use an icon from the game (I was thinking of the mini whiptail devourer), that I am free to do so, but I have to first upload a new copy of it under User Tharkun sig.png first. I can't just use the existing image (which is fine, and reasonable). My question is whether this is in fact true, or if I'm not supposed to use the Anet content. The best I can gather from previous discussion is that its ok but not creative and thus makes me not very noteworthy (which is also fine). Can someone confirm that this is the case? Thanks. Tharkun 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The only thing that is "bad" about it, is that if many people use it, it's hard to tell users apart (you'd be surprised how many people want to sign with profession icons). I don't think anyone has used the whiptail yet though. - BeX 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, that was what the "not creative and not noteworthy" part referred to - Skuld, I think, referred to his use of the Monk icon leading everyone to ask how to put their profession on their signature. Anyway, thanks Bex. Tharkun 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always better if you make the icon yourself. But you can always pick an icon from somewhere else to start with, change color, change some pixels and "ding!", your own 'original' icon. MithTalk 13:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think its 'always better' to make it myself, since I have virtually no artistic skills. Then again, if you count just changing a few pixels as "making" an icon, then I suppose that's what I did anyway. I shifting coloring slightly and mirrored the lil' guy.. with the same idea in mind: adding a wee bit of uniqueness to the image. - THARKUN 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Sign_your_comments#Proposal

Same thing as that, but it was removed for in the draft, even though this proposal has passed like twice already. Third times the charm! — ク Eloc 貢 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the "no impersonation" line covers the similarity concerns nicely. Whether or not the policy mentions "no similar signatures" is secondary: the policy should come into effect only when there is attempted impersonation or actual confusion.

I have always disliked the fact that we have a policy that tells people to pointlessly create dummy accounts just for their signatures. I oppose the re-adding of that line.

Lastly, "easily recognisable" is much better resolved by the current it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents. It's too hard to define what is easily recognisable and what is not. For example, I have a hard time recognising leetspeak but some users like it and the bottomline is, it's really harmless unless it's causing alot of controversy. -- ab.er.rant 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I propose we limit it to 1 image in a signature. — ク Eloc 貢 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a good idea? Who would it help? What drawbacks are there and why are they superseded by the advantages of your proposal? —Tanaric 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric, do you think it's a bad idea?

I think one image is more than enough. Surely, if we limit the image size by 19x19px, the number of images should be limited to one? One could chain three 19px images together and still be within SIGN. I actually thought this was left in the proposal. -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, one image should be enough and more could cause problems including what Brains mentioned. --Kakarot 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why make more hard rules? Eloc himself has two image-like symbols on his signature. To a talk page reader that is no different than two images of the same and certainly no more disruptive. Having two images doesn't strictly make your signature a call for extra attention. --Aspectacle 02:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between Eloc's "icons" (which are, in essence, just two letters) and an extra image. -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, off the top of my head, the differences are in the code, possibly the length of the code and page load time. The wording of the image section already strongly implies through the consistent use of singular that a single image or icon is all that is allowed anyway. So I'm just stirring. ;) --Aspectacle 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brains, I have no opinion on the proposal, which is why I want further clarification as to why it's worthwhile. —Tanaric 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons: Because it takes more Kbs in text chacraters to the page load regardless of the size of the images. Because they can be put in the same image if they are adjacent. Because 19x19 + 19x19 > 19x19. Just like the usual limit of size and weight in the images of signatures in forums add up, they should add up in here. Take one of the most visited and large pages: Gaile's GW suggestions. Currenlty almost no one has two images. Imagine if everyone had 2 or 3 of them. Count the number of signs in there and multiply by 40. That would be the average extra Kb multiple images would add, counting both image size and code size. MithTalk 10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Before I argue about why we use only one icon, I'm baffled about Eloc's question. Eloc, why are you proposing something that's already in the policy? -- ab.er.rant 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"A small image.." could perhaps be misconstrued as allowing images, (not just specifically one). Far-fetched, I know, but meh -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, i think it's just because the text doesn't specifically mention several images used. - Y0_ich_halt 15:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wider Images?

The intent on the size restriction is clearly stated as avoidance of text disruption. But if I limit my image *height* to 19 pixels, text is not disrupted. In fact, my current signature *appears* no different than if I made both halves of my name (with the image in the middle) separate links. Why should this not be okay? (TALK | HISTORY) 06:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying to myself to prove a point. Look how the spacing of this line is exactly the same as it would be if anyone else had signed the above comment. (TALK | HISTORY) 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

After thinking more on this, while I still think that the 19-pixel width is restrictive and I'm maintaining civil disobedience on that point, I'm also shortening my signature in both wikicode and appearance. (AUNTMOUSIE) 09:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good to have a 19px by 19px image limit in signatures limit for everyone. If one user is allowed to have 25px wide sigs, for example, why can't another have 30px or 40px? I think there should be a limit that everyone abides by. Kokuou 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With the number of images this wiki throws around without thinking, I don't see 40px wide sig images, or even a 200 px wide sig images, are going to be noticable to anyone. The number of server round-trips is the same, and while it may be a couple hundred K the first time someone loads a busy talk page, with today's speeds (even for dialup) I have a hard time seeing that as significant. We still have a restriction on length so I really don't see the point of a narrow sig image. ~Scion~ (talk | contribs) 16:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My previous wiki experience tells me that there is a direct link between what you call civil disobedience and tons of wiki drama (in bad cases ending with users leaving the wiki). If you disagree with the policy, try lobbying for a change, without the disobedience part. Less drama and more chances of going through that way. --Xeeron 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it may not appear to be disruptive to have the width longer than 19px, if we took off that limit, people will just put some ridiculously long image in their signature and be like "Oh, I'm abiding by the rules, la dee da dee dum". — ク Eloc 貢 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must we take off the limit entirely? It seems like a false dichotomy; we could simply say 40x19. Or 100x19. Or some reasonable limit that we come up with. Heck, we could make all sig images subject to prior approval and create a Signature Approval Board that judges to see if they're nondisruptive, smallish, and pretty. There are plenty of options if you don't artificially constrain yourself. Admitting that I wasn't here when any of the current policies were drafted or debated (and thus I might be missing some obvious argument known to all the vets), I personally don't see a huge problem with any of the options for loosening of the rules. I don't have a problem with them staying, either, but I don't think there's anything intrinsically awesome about them. — THARKUN 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as Eloc's comment, I don't see it as an issue. As I said earlier, there is already a restriction on sig length, and while not specific, it basically says to keep it non-disruptive. A ridiculously long image in a signature would obviously break that. As far as Tharkun's comment, the biggest advantage I see of lengthening the limit is that we (as users) no longer have to worry about does the wiki support the font we want, does it render well on different browsers, etc, etc, etc. Basically, we could take a (19px high) image of our name in the font we wanted, and use that. As it is, that's not an option. I would support lengthening it to 100x19, or to to 150x19, or even doing away with the width restriction entirely and let that be covered by the length restrictions. I would propose an official policy change, but I'm not sure how to do that. ~Scion~ (talk | contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, taking Xeeron's comment to heart, I propose we change the first bullet point under images to two bullet points as follows:

• The image used is constrained to a maximum height of 19 pixels, to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability.
• The image should not be significantly longer than the text of your user name with a reasonable icon (on one or both ends) and should in no way disrupt the readability of text as covered above under Length. ~Scion~ (talk | contribs) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm suddenly getting a feeling of deja vu. I wonder why... --Dirigible 04:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then change the second bullet above to read:

• The image should not be significantly longer then the text of your username with a reasonable icon before and or after the text, and shall abide by the above rules for text, including Length and Appearance

The sigs on your example page, while technically legal under length, definately violate (purposely, I'd say) the Appearance clause that states "Your signature should neither inconvenience nor annoy other editors.". Auntmousie's original image (above) does neither, but still technically violates the current policy. While the "annoy" clause is a tad vague, but a lot of policies are open to interpretation. ~Scion~ (talk | contribs) 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So who exactly is in charge of determining which sigs violate that clause or not? What happens with the opinions of people like Tanaric, Barek, Aiiane or myself, that find images of those sizes littering the talk pages disruptive, distracting and annoying, regardless of their content? I guess our opinions are discarded right off the bat.

Many of the restrictions from the userpage policy were removed with the reasoning "who cares what they do in their userspace, don't go there if you don't want to". The same doesn't apply to signatures, as they are everywhere and impossible to avoid, from election votes to discussions of all kinds. For that reason I'm against relaxing these limits. 19x19px was the compromise, there's plenty on here who would like to see images gone completely, as they are counterproductive in discussions. Look at GuildWiki talk pages to see how distracting they can get even when they are much smaller than your proposed limit and not trying to be intentionally disruptive.

We should use talk pages for talking, which is what they are there for. Use userpages to show off artistic prowess and personality. 19x19px icons are the compromise. --Dirigible 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly you found Auntmousie's sig above distracting? I never said to discard your opinions. Instead I tried to address them. Who is in charge of determining if a given sig is annoying now? Personally I find Eloc's sig annoying, and the characters before and after pushing the bounds of policy (and, looking back on this very talk page, I'm not alone). I find Mithos_Agar's sig quite disruptive as well, and looking at his talk page, again I'm not alone. Honestly, though, neither distracts from a conversation. In fact, I have no problems with reading talk pages on guidwiki, either. What I find really annoying is that people who get warned and ignore it get no consequences, while Auntmousie brought the discussion here where the best response is "civil disobedience leads to drama" and "what if the power users don't like it"?. Au contraire, I'd say. Civil disobedience leads to nothing, while opening your mouth to try and improve things leads to drama. As to the power-users argument, I'd point at GWW:WELCOME. Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about this to continue to offend the wiki gods, so I'll crawl back into my wiki-fairy corner now. At least then I'll have more time to actually play the game. ~Scion~ [GRIPE] 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Power users"? "Wiki gods"? "Namedropping" ? Where did all that come from? Those four names I listed there are the four people who unambiguously said in the previous discussion that they don't like big image sigs. It is in that same context that they were used in above, users that find long image sigs disruptive and distracting. I'm not particularly happy of having my words distorted, but since I don't know you I'm having a difficult time deciding whether this is an attempt to pull a strawman or if this a genuine misunderstanding. Assuming good faith, accepting it as the latter. --Dirigible 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a genuine misunderstanding. Apologies for that.

You still didn't answer my first question...did you find Auntmousie's original signature (or even her current one, which is more like 25px wide) distracting? I am trying to work through your objections and find a way that her sig, or even Eloc's or Mithos' are reasonably acceptable, while still addressing the issues brought up on the page you linked. Thanks. ~Scion~ [GRIPE] 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Her current signature contains an image that is larger than any other user's image and, therefore, is more obtrusive to the eye than the rest. The point is that breaking a policy just because you feel it's restrictive or don't agree with it is silly. J.Kougar had his ban lengthened because he broke a policy that he didn't feel was fair, and I don't see how this should be any different. I'm going to put up a RfC for this issue and the community can decide whether we should change the policy, but as it stands, she needs to shrink her sig image. Kokuou 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea. Wish I'd have thought of it ~Scion~ [GRIPE] 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed that there was already one just now. No need to get snappy. :P Kokuou 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) What is abundantly clear to me, both from this discussion and the archives, is that there is no concensus on the specific issue of images. One argument is to say "we must stick to the current policy as written until a revision is concensed upon". That said, I'm not the only signature fudging the rules... just the only one who has recently stepped up and said 'hey, this is pretty silly.' And sure enough I'm getting a firestorm over it... because I opened my mouth. If this is how our community works, I'm tempted to just stop contributing on talk pages. The stated reason for image limitation is to avoid disrupting text... I still maintain that height is more important than width in that regard. The users who object to wider images are, almost without exception, the same users who object to images at all and are only willing to allow 19x19 as a compromise. (And frankly, I'd *rather* have no images at all than the asinine rule that they must be square.)

The point of a signature is to be recognizable. Let your vision blur as you look at this page. Which users can you still recognize? The ones with images. 'Nuff said.

(Under protest, I'm putting in a 19x19 restrictor on my signature code because the only thing more ludicrous than this rule would be getting banned over it.) (AUNTMOUSIE under protest) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification on why we sign. A signature is just to attach a name as the author of the preceding block of text, to provide continuity as part of a conversation, and as a marker that the comment is complete. It doesn't need to be instantly recognisable as to who said what and where. Ideally, the point of a talk page comment is the content, not who said it. You don't need to instantly recognise who said it. It is not a tool for individuality.

Your 31x19 is more noticeable than your 19x19 (which I personally find to be more fitting with the size of your sig text), which sort of makes your comment more noticeable. While it certainly does not disrupt the text height, larger icons does draw the eye more than smaller icons.

And as for how this community is supposed to work, just a historical recap. This policy started off with what you find better than 19x19: No sig icons. Yes, it started out with no images at all (plus restricted colours and only English characters to boot). But more and more people pushed for it, so as Dirigible noted, 19x19 became the compromise. Citing "drama" and threatening to not contribute when someone else strongly opposes is not exactly how a wiki community should or would work.

On the issue that there are users whose sigs are hinted to be in violation of this policy, please raise a formal complaint about it and it'll get discussed (further, if it has already been discussed before). -- ab.er.rant 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to the noticeboard? -Auron 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. -- ab.er.rant 09:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aberrant, I understand the point of a signature, but it seems to me that 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 - or, to use your phrase, "a tool for individuality." That's fine by me, of course - I'm (clearly) a big fan of self-expression. The *only* reason I'm on about this is that IMO, any rule other than 'common sense' should have a logical basis. And while I agree that *some* restriction on width is appropriate, it does not follow that 19x19 is the only appropriate limitation. The 19x19 compromise led to sufficient concensus to get the policy enacted, and that's a good thing... but that does not mean there isn't a better, fairer limit in existence. FWIW, the oldest iteration of the policy I could find under "history" listed the 19x19 size.

Also FWIW, I didn't threaten to not contribute. I didn't say "I'm refusing to post until this policy gets changed." I said (and I quote) "I'm tempted to just stop contributing on talk pages" (emphasis added here). Declining to talk on talk pages would be an easy way to avoid any lingering dissatisfaction with the signature policy. It would mean I can't explain or defend my edits, but given how few mainspace edits I really make, I don't see how that would harm the community in any way meriting the designation "threat". And the word "drama" didn't come from me at all in this context.

I chose the small lettering precisely because I was being constrained to a smaller icon, and thus forced to work with the text to differentiate myself. The fact that my compromise-induced image works better with my compromise-induced text doesn't prove that my current image is inherently better. In point of fact, I've heard many voices to the effect that my larger mouse image is bigger than the rule allows, but haven't really heard anyone say that they found it specifically bothersome. Frankly, I fail to see how a signature that draws the eye is "bad"... but since I am also quite capable of reading the writing on the wall, please don't bother explaining it again. I'll just have to agree to disagree. My present signature does not violate policy and I'd be thrilled never to hear anything more about it.

Lastly... in order to report someone's signature as a violation, I would first have to be bothered by it. I'm not bothered by any signature I'm aware of. I'm bothered by the rule. (AUNTMOUSIE) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't just targeting you singularly with my response, hence my referral to things you didn't mention. My little history recap appears to have gotten mixed in with other drafts and talk apparently. I seem to recall a time when there was a strong push for no images in signatures, but I guess it didn't make it. I will add more below. -- ab.er.rant 09:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

linksplat template

I'm curious about the transclusion/template part of the policy. I understand that transcluded code creates server drain and no one wants that. Is the same true of templates? I ask because the stated reason for disallowing templates is to prevent vandalism... and don't get me wrong, I'm all for that. However, the current policy also prizes brevity both in wikicode and visual impact, and this is where templates shine. For example, if I created a page called "User:Auntmousie/linksplat" and put it on my watchlist, and then made it read:

<small>([[User_talk:Auntmousie|TALK]] | [[Special:Contributions/Auntmousie|HISTORY]])</small>

Then my signature could replace all of the above code with {{User:Auntmousie/linksplat}} which is much shorter. Since it would be on my watchlist, I would get an email any time it was vandalized, so unless this increases server load, where's the harm? (AUNTMOUSIE) 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it does increase server load, and every time it is changed or vandalised it would force all pages it is on to update (so both vandalism and reverts would cause "harm"). Storing that code on the talk page directly takes a lot less space/server load than referring back to the sig page. Size of talk pages isn't the biggest problem, which is the only thing we would solve by using sig templates. :) - anja 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sig pages are good targets for vandalism. The only real benefit of using sig pages is to make it easy to change your sig across the whole wiki. -- ab.er.rant 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Templates in sigs, while they may make your life as a user easier, are quite a bit of strain on the server side (both the db and the cache). I'd be against changing this. ~Scion~ (talk | contribs) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Most templates are either used in a few pages or once only in a page. But isgnatures may appear in every single talk page more than 50 times. That would be like a punch in the face of the server. MithTalk 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A simple "yes, they would increase server load just as much as transclusion" was more than sufficient to answer my question. (AUNTMOUSIE) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked a long question, you got a long answer. :p I think this has all been discussed before, you should have a look at the policy discussion archives. Biscuits 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. And actually, it has and it hasn't. Templates have been brought up before as a 'why can't I just make my entire signature a template' sort of thing, but the discussion focused on vandalism risks more than server load. Anyhow, question answered. (AUNTMOUSIE) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)