GuildWiki talk:Sigpic

→ moved from GuildWiki talk:Community Portal#class="sigpic"

"Seasonal images"? Are we having a movement to mass-encourage people to upload new sig-images for various special events? Just wondering. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pan, the way this works is that some admin changes the .css, and all participating users display the same image. In the case of this demo, the small buffalo would come up all over the wiki in different users' signatures (but only those that changed it in their preferences to participate, it is strictly "opt-in"), and they wouldn't have to a thing, no uploads or anything. --◄mendel► 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this has a potential of creating even more mess with users who don't know what they're doing, but want one cus "it's cool." People seem to steal mainspace Icons all the time as it is, and request help with sigs, and then we have to tell them how to get a custom sig and to upload their own image. Just imagine what this could do. Why not just change your real sig for the season, and then change it back? Nothing fancy here. RoseOfKali 02:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The advantage is, you change your sig once, and you'll always automatically get a seasonal image, no mess, no anything. The way it works is that you change your sig to <span class="sigpic">[[User:yourname|yourname]]</span> ~~~~~ and check the "raw" checkbox in your preferences, and that's it! You can have a more complicated signature, of course, but that would be entirely optional. --◄mendel► 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: the image goes away when the season is over, and is replaced by another image when a new season begins (this happens automatically when a GuildWiki sysop makes the central change). That means you can change your signature now, and when dragon festival starts, all of the posts you signed after the change get the buffalo. There'll be a GuildWiki page to show off the images and decide on new ones together. --◄mendel► 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this, other than possibly reducing redundant image uploads, or being used to differentiate certain users from others ("Look at me, I'm participating in the wintersday raffle/Dragon Festival party/aware of breast cancer!"), but whatever. It's exactly the same thing you did for the holiday "iceboxes"; well, the concept is the same... "I don't want to see them" is irrelevant because it is opt-in, and you cannot force another user to change their sig just because you don't want to see it, either. (Well, with this, I could disable them from showing up via .css, but that is another matter) (T/C) 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that I grabbed the festival mascot off guildwiki.de and while I would have used it as my personal signature image it seemed fair to allow anybody to use it; and usually that would've meant that everybody who wanted would have had to upload their own copy plus all the yada yada that Rose mentioned. This way, the mascot can be shared, image redirects are not needed, and it can become a community thing. --◄mendel► 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it's done with padding + background image trick, I'd be a little uneasy unless the license of the image used is easily findable by other visitors/users. "Easily" is of course subjective, but let's say at least without using firebug or viewing the CSS code, and without going through recently uploaded files one by one. Can it be pulled off without complicating the syntax? (By saying "I'd be a little unease" instead of outright demanding certain conditions, I try to dodge a particular double-standards question...) -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 05:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that is simple to address. Simply have the image redirect to the page where images are decided upon, and make sure to copy the copyright info to that page (which would be on the image's page anyway). (T/C) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The double standard issue is that the license of our user sigs can only be seen by backtracking the redirect and then viewing the page source (I wondered why guildwiki.de doesn't redirect its signatures and thought that might've been a reason). We have no licensing link to the GuildWiki logo and no info on the page it redirects to; I have no idea how the monobook book background is licensed because it's not even in Image: namespace.

Concerning the ox, the issue is moot because it's in the public domain. Concerning the Creative Commons licenses, section 4d of this states at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears, and that means the credit on the Image: page suffices, a direct link is not required. GFDL probably works in similar ways.

Entropy, your fix wouldn't be simple because it would completely change the concept: signature images that don't link to the user's page would certainly be a contentious issue.

See GuildWiki:Sigpic. --◄mendel► 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing pics

So let's say I activate this and I have a mini ox following my sigs on all the talk pages I post. When we get to Wintersday, won't all of the oxes change into snowflakes or whatever the next picture might be? Silver Sunlight (T/C) 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)