Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Draft

There ya go, Brains. Copy+Pasted straight from GuildWiki just like I said I would.-- MP47  (Talk) (Contr.) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it so GW2W doesn't need to have a strict image policy, and nothing went severely wrong on GuildWiki with this policy.  Calor  (t) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And there shouldn't be a freaking ban for not following it. A guideline is more of what this should be, not a law.-- MP47  (Talk) (Contr.) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing a sig policy, Marco, even if it is a copy+paste. I don't have a major problem with this, except for the images. If you wish to include images as your main signature, then there shouldn't be any background colour, and the same with normal text. I have no problem with font colours, but wide images with a background will disrupt and distract discussion. A sig like your GuildWiki one with a plain white background, but blue "text" is absolutely fine with me; but a same one with, say, a black or blue or yellow "background" would not. -- Brains12  • Talk  • 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For images to appear in the sig instead of your name, I'd want some requirements. First of all, there should be no doubt of who the user in question is. Second, I'd prefer the backgrounds to be transparent, and not even white background. The only catch is that if you don't want choppy edges you'd have to go for .png and then anyone using IE6 would get an gray colored background, a problem I personally would ignore though. People need to realize sooner or later that 7 year old technology is old. Third, I'd require all images to have an alt-attribute with the user's name, for screen readers. Example with my own image;   would show up as "Image:User Galil sig.png" for anyone with a screen reader, while   would show up simply as Galil.


 * Other than that I only have a few minor issues with this draft. I personally don't mind people having &lt;big&gt; and &lt;small&gt; in their sigs. &lt;sup&gt; and &lt;sub&gt; should be allowed, but very sparingly. For example if I'd want to have "Galil talk" as signature, I should be allowed. I'd change the line "Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read." to read "Do not change the text size of your signature as it could affect the flow of the text, or make it very difficult to read." At the very bottom, the template you're looking for is unsigned2, not unsigned, and the format is.


 * Also, seeing as I try to standardize the wiki whenever I run into something that violates the w3c standards, please drop the &lt;font&gt; tags in the examples and replace with spans. The font tag is deprecated with XHTML 1.0, which is what the wiki is using. It's also missing the end tag of &lt;code&gt; after the second example under Customizing your signature, which seems to appear under Appearance and color for some reason. With all that said, I wonder what's the reason for the changes? That is, what is it that bugs you about the current policy? &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png]] 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow Galil, very thorough. :) Just to usurp Marco's reply on why; GW2W and GWW have linked preferences which means anyone posting to both wikis is restricted by this wikis signature policy.  There is a swing on the gw2 wiki away from over legislation of sysop and user behaviour, due in part to the high activity of  GuildWiki editors there and a dislike about how policies like the signature policy have been enforced on GWW. If a weaker policy is adopted on that wiki it maybe wise to adopt a weaker policy/guideline here for those contributing to both.   It may also be wise to develop a weaker policy here first because there are more contributors and active interest on this wiki at the moment.  --Aspectacle 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts to ignore: I find it almost laughable that the "compare with current version" link exists on the page. Also- Br12 is dead on. - elviondale  (tahlk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Elviondale, I had the same thought to your first note. Red ftw. And where's Brains dead on &mdash; he often is, but where's the comment you're referring to. To Galil, I like most of what you said (Great sig by the way). But I'm against sup and sub, as they just annoy my eyes. I won't fight strongly for that, but I figure my opinion has some amount of worth here. Also, I don't think many new users know how to change from white to transparency, or for the alt-attribute. If you have IE6, then I'm sorry, you're falling behind.  Calor  (t) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th one from the top? - elviondale  (tahlk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Copy+Pasted straight from GuildWiki just like I said I would.", I didn't check that yet, but I hope you remember that guildwiki and GWW have incompatible copyrights, so if you copy anything from guildwiki, you need to make sure that only users who have released their edits to GFDL contributed. Else this needs to be removed as a copyright violation. --Xeeron 11:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this must be deleted for copyright reasons, then I suggest starting again from the wikipedia version which the GuildWiki version was copied from and is still largely identical to. ;) --Aspectacle 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Galil, there is a problem with subs and sups: they change the line width height. I'm not sure if you see it as well, but the line in which you have the sup is lower than it should be. That reason is also why image height is restricted to 19px.-- Brains12  • Talk  • 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean line height, right? :) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, yeah. &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- Brains12  • Talk  • 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reasons for change
As was already asked: Why? Aside from saying that this is copied from GuildWiki (bringing up the copyright issue Xeeron mentioned), no reason whatsoever has been given for this proposal. If there's no reason for a change, then no change is necessary.

Other things to note:
 * We leave help-related stuff in the Help namespace (such as Help:Signatures).
 * There already is an existing change proposal. It is both less wordy and (if this was your main concern) more flexible. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 14:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the main concern for Marco's draft is the current restriction of image width to 19px. -- Brains12  • Talk  • 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Marco got all pissed off on one of his talk pages on GWW or GW2W after Eloc told him off for his sig because the image was too large, even though Marco perfectly replicated the signature legally without an image and with text and Eloc didn't shove a policy in his face.  Calor  (t) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There should only be one draft at once. We don't need two places to discuss the same topic.. A draft is to propose changes so when there are specific changes, they should be posted on the other draft page (which was first btw). Also Marco's signature is not really legally to our active policy as he uses a bigger font size. poke | talk 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My font size is the same, if not smaller, than any others here. And why not have two drafts? It allows people to view a number of different approaches, and gives them different opinions as well. As for my reason for the proposal, it's basically what Aspectacle said: GW2W may adopt a softer policy towards signatures, and if GW2W and GWW share preferences, then nobody should continually change their sig just so that it will comply with the signature policy on the respective wikis. Also, I'm against sup and sub tags, as they do adjust line height, and rainbow colored sigs (such as ShadyGuys old signature and Splatterpuss's current one, and my first one) and the like because they are very disruptive and draw a lot of attention away from the actual posts on talk pages. Finally, people coming from in-game may be discouraged/afraid of contributing here with (no offense) such strict policies. I'm open to any suggestions that you would like to make, and sorry for freakin' out on one of those talk pages, I tend lose my temper a tad bit too easily sometimes.-- MP47  (Talk) (Contr.) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh nvm me, I didn't checked it again (you had a bigger font-size sometime ago). The problem with having multiple drafts is exactly the reason why I think we won't get finished on gw2w that soon. People see too much possiblities and try to change each of them (if they even participate in all discussions) instead of building up one good proposal. poke | talk 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But over there, we can't really relax and let the discussion go for too long, because there is currently NO policy there. Here, we have the option of keeping the current one until a possible concensus is built on one of these drafts, without any kind of rushing it, if you understand what I mean.-- MP47  (Talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * @Reason: If the reason is just because of what might happen on gw2w then it is completely invalid. There is no point on changing the current policy if we don't know what will happen there. Wait until a policy is accepted and then we can discuss what changes (if any) will be needed here.
 * @Relax: We can relax there also, even when there is no policy, there is no content to add either so there is no rush to have a policy, we can discuss whatever is needed to discuss. -- Coran Ironclaw 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coran. If anything, it should be GW2W's policy that needs to take the policy here into consideration, exactly because this policy is already in effect while there's nothing over there. Changes here affect a greater number of users. And I doubt GW2W will go up in flames if policies doesn't get established any time soon. Some of the policies here took quite a while to get accepted too. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking over both proposals, the only significant difference I see (aside from copyright issues) is the permitted width of images. Why not change the other draft accordingly and go from there? Marco (and anyone else who prefers this draft, really), if you read the other draft with 50x19 instead of 19x19, do you have any issues with it? - Tanetris 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)