GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

GuildWiki talk:Sign your comments/P1

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit source]

This proposed policy is based on the conversations at GuildWiki_talk:Sign_your_comments#Draft_as_a_policy.3F. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:43, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Wouldn't it be easier to have the Wiki automatically attach the ~~~~ signature to the end of every post on a talk/discussion page? I'm all for the policy in any case though. Unsigned comments get rather annoying sometimes... Entropy 14:49, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Automation wouldn't be good. There are cases when you modify, archive, etc where the automation would screw it.
Comments on the draft:
  1. sub, sup, big and other similiar tags and formatting that make a line higher than normal should be clearly disallowed. No point in the rule if it isn't clear and someone breaks it.
  2. I think that the 19 pixel limit is better and should be put in the policy. If someone has a 20 pixel icon, they should change it, but it's not the most disturbing thing.
  3. Maby a more specific comment in the internal links section, stating that links to own contributions etc are not encouraged as most people aren't interested in them and they can easily be accessed otherwise.
If I think of anything else, I'll tell you. Otherwise I like the draft. Great job! --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I've re-edited the section on sup/sub/big - the original version was ported from Wikipedia, but our specific concerns here differ from there's, so I've spelled it out more specifically.
For image height, I have no problem changing it to 19, but would like more feedback. I have the proposal currently saying max is 25x20 as that's the standard profession icon size and the original discussion listed 20px as acceptable to some users. The max width wasn't previously discussed either, so I would like feedback on if that should remain as well.
For the contribs ... as an admin, I actually like the convenience of having it available when someone includes it in their sig, but I have no problem modifying the draft if concensus is against it (and of course, I would remove it from my own sig as well)  :-) --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:48, 28 December 2006 (CST)
The width of 25 is ok to me. I believe some people are using pretty wide icons, like User:Shadowed, so maby even 30-40 would be ok. I think that the height of 19 is better to include in the policy even if we don't enforce people to change old sigs, just to prevent the making of new sigs with icons stretching line height.
I know that some people like to have their contribs in their sig and that's why I didn't ask to completely deny them. Just recommend people to keep everything else away except ofcourse user page / talk page link and possibly contributions. No links to characters, elite skill lists or other personal stuff not related to wiki editing should be allowed. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I added an example in the internal links section, spelling out some items not to include. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:02, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Great. I was browing some talk pages and saw the sig of User:HarshLanguage, which uses an icon 50 pixels wide, which doesn't really disturb me too much. Maby allow a width up to 40 pixels? --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2006 (CST)
If no one finds a pixel length of 50, 60 or even 75 disruptive, I have no objection to any of those lengths. Or we can leave image length out for now and tweak the wording to give an admin discretion to determine what constitutes a disruptive width (although, I suspect that will leave people trying different sizes until they find what becomes the defacto accepted length that no one complains about). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:20, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Deciding on a limit now is easier than not to. A 40 pixel width should be enough for most users. Anything wider is just extra leetnes. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I've adjusted the max size to 40x19 ... further discussion can be based on that proposal. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:22, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Whoa, happened to browse this page and see myself mentioned! O.o Images wider than 40 aren't disruptive IMHO. 10 pixels wider isn't going to affect a page's appearance. I think the real width problem is with multi-word usernames, added links, and the unabbreviated dates. (Too bad there's nothing we can do about the dates.) Would it be better to specify a total sig width rather than image width? That would clear up a bunch of issues at once and give users flexibility.
Anyway, I support the policy changes in all respects but image width, where I'd say 50 is a fine limit (and not only because mine happens to be that width) but suggest consideration of total sig width instead. And Gem, it's just an image I use a lot elsewhere shrunk down proportionally so it's 19px high... I was very concerned about height for wiki use, the width looked OK. It was definitely not self-aggrandizing "leetness." I'm about as unleet as they come. =) — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 18:56, 31 December 2006 (CST)
We can't really do anything about long user names, and the date is fine as it is the same for everyone. I could live with a maximum width of 50, or maby even 60, but not more. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2006 (CST)
In the interest of not looking totally self-serving in my support for 50px width images, I reduced mine to 46. =) Ultimately it's an arbitrary number within a certain range. Whatever it ends up being, I'm glad you are working to clarify it and other sig issues. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 19:32, 31 December 2006 (CST)
There is a bit about total text length (currently proposed at two lines at 800x600 res, but I would support going to three lines, or maybe 1024x768 res). The image width can be disruptive; the 40 width is just a proposal - I could see 50 or 60 being reasonable. Personally, I personally would strongly oppose anything beyond 100 and would argue against going beyond 75, but would prefer even shorter. To me, 50 is reasonable. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:56, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Everyone participating so far seems to agree that 50px width is acceptable. So I updated it to 50 x 19 as the current proposed limit for further discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:46, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Animated graphics[edit source]

How about a note disallowing the use of animated gifs (or any other form of animated file) in signatures? --Rainith 17:03, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I agree. I added "No animated images are permitted due to the visual disruption they cause within text pages." within the images section; and "Do not use <blink> or other text animations as it causes visual disruption of the text page." in the appearance section. Does that cover it? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:27, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Gah! Blink tags. Yes thank you for that. *shudder* (imagines blinking signatures in a long talk page.) --Rainith 18:30, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Good that you noticed this. Blinking things just slipped past us two. ;) --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Non-latin characters[edit source]

Non-latin names are allowed by the software. Off the top of my head, only forward slashes and a few troublesome non-ASCII characters are disallowed (like a literal nbsp). --Fyren 18:25, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I was primarilly trying to word it to avoid characters that come accross as square boxes if the user reading it doesn't have the appropriate font installed. These vary from machine to machine, and even browser to browser. Any suggestions on better phrasing for this, or would you recommend just leaving out that section? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:31, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I suppose I could edit the code to only allow latin characters if people want. I was just mentioning "no non-latin characters" doesn't make sense when the name itself can be non-latin. --Fyren 19:51, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Do you mean editing the wiki software? Would that edit make any sense? Aren't there any users with latin characters in the user name? --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Haven't looked, but they'd be rare if there are any. --Fyren 20:06, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I see your point. Untill/unless we establish a policy on acceptable usernames (not needed at this point), I think the non-latin character in sigs can be left out at this point. I'll comment it out for now - it can always be added in a policy proposal if the issue ever comes up. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:17, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Sig icons[edit source]

I just saw User talk:Jyro X#Sig Icon and remembered another thing. Users should upload a custom icon for their sig, not reuse something allready in the wiki. Reason 1: Messes up with the 'where the image is used' pages. Rason 2: The icon used is usually larger than the allowed 40x19 and must be resized. Reason 3: Allows users to easily change the icon for their sig later. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2006 (CST)

I was actually thinking along similar lines a few minutes ago for different reasons. I'll work on fixing up that section. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:41, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I reworded it so that a user must have the icon redirect to his user page or talk page. I'm open to discussion, but if we force a personal icon, why not a redirect? --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Agreed - I missed that or I would have fixed it. If they use an icon, it should redirect. That's actually the reasoning I had when I reached the same point you did on each user needing a unique image file if they use an icon. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:05, 28 December 2006 (CST)
As I've thought about this more - there are MANY users who have generic profession icons in their sigs. While I would prefer redirects for any icon used in a sig, that could mean a large amount of redundant uploads.
I personally am okay with that; but if there are any concerns, what about wording this so that the signature must contain a link to the userpage, either in the text or the sig. Again, I'm fine with the additional image uploads ... just suggesting this as an option incase anyone had any concerns here with disk space, processing, or bandwidth. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:01, 4 January 2007 (CST)
I don't see a real problem with either case. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Length[edit source]

The length description was "more that two lines", I added a reference to 800x600 resolution so that we don't enter arguments of "well it's under two lines at my resolution", etc. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:22, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Heh. Have you even checked to see how big that is? Your signature spans three lines, including the date, at 800x600. --Fyren 18:04, 31 December 2006 (CST)
LOL- yea, I noticed - from other comments above, I was suspecting a need to remove the "contribs" section from my sig - so that would shrink it. Still, the original source of this at Wikipedia says "two to three lines" without specifying a resolution - I could go for modifying this version to three lines too if others support it. Two could be too drastic for some users who already have longer sigs. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:48, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Three is okay. People with long user names will have difficulties even with that. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Changed to three. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:44, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Implementation[edit source]

No comments or new complaints about the change have been made in over a week, and I believe that all the older comments have been resolved. If no further issues come up before then, I say we implement this Jan 15th. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:48, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Agreed. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2007 (CST)


?[edit source]

Has this already been accepted? If so, why is it still in proposed? Does it have a template for "this suggestion was adopted" or something? --Shadowcrest 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this usually gets handled. The proposal page itself isn't necessary anymore, that's for sure. But should this talkpage be deleted too, or should it be archived somewhere? If any of the "older" users have experience with this, your help would be appreciated. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well as "User ID: 247" (until Wikia messed up my account with their user DB merge :) and have more gray hairs than I'd to admit to, guess I fall into that "older" users group. hehe, anyway, suggest checking out Category:Archived Policies and use those for guildance. --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 03:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to say that this replicates Talk:Girls on Top because that makes me look old but not yet senile, I agree that treating it like any other archived policy makes the most sense. I don't think the article or this talk page needs to be deleted. --Xasxas256 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So archive the whole thing? Works for me. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 03:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)