Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments

Feedback:User/
Could we make it possible to have your Feedback userpage as an additional option where your signature can link to? And i mean the Userpage, not a single suggestion. This can provide an easy and fast access for others to check out your suggestions. - J.P.  Talk  17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm up for it, but then we should have all Feedback talk:User redirect to their user talk, so we can still quickly get to their talk page C4K3 [[Image:User_C4K3_Signature.jpg]] Talk 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I could change my link from my non-existant user page to my non-existant feedback page! Misery  18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it a bit more accurate, i thought this as an option where your sig image can link. But it i'm not against of providing the link some other way.
 * @C4K3: I meant it as an additional link, not to replace userpage or talk link. - J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png|Contributions]] Talk  18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm pretty sure your allowed to do  J.P.[[File:User J.P. sigicon.png]]Feedback  C4K3 [[Image:User_C4K3_Signature.jpg]] Talk 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy says no, but my body says YES! - J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png|Contributions]] Talk  18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like it tbh. Chances are, if I'm clicking your sig, I want to contact you somehow, not read about what you want to do about Guild Wars/2. – Emmett  18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I DON'T WANT THIS AS A REPLACEMENT FOR USERPAGE OR TALK PAGE LINKS FOR  SAKE! Got it? -.- - J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png|Contributions]] Talk  19:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still unnecessary clutter. See 1, 2 & 3 for another somewhat similar example. (I can't remember the other time something like SI's page occurred- if I do, I'll post it.) – Emmett  19:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that we used signatures to provide identification and/or a page for communication, and used userpages for other types of links. When you're signing a comment, your feedback-space suggestions are irrelevant. -- pling User Pling sig.png 19:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't a link to one's contributions then irrelevant as well? - J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png|Contributions]] Talk  19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That link is actually useful for reference and discussion. Linking to the feedback space in a sig is like linking to a hub for your characters- something better suited for a userpage. – Emmett  19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like you can't have access to those from one's userpage... - J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png|Contributions]] Talk  19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could link to your contribs in your userpage, but they're so useful to people that having them in a sig is generally accepted. Feedback, on the other hand, really only needs to be a link, because there aren't going to be enough people seeking out your feedback portal to justify linking it everywhere you go. – Emmett  21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I redirect my user: and talk: pages to my feedback:user/ and feedback talk:user/ pages? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 0:17, 29 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that relates to signatures, but I'll give my thoughts. Your talk has to stay as is. You could do a reverse Anet with User->Feedback and Feedback talk->User talk, but that still might make it harder to get to your main talk. --JonTheMon 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirecting a userpage to a feedback page makes it harder for people to get to contributions, block tools, or logs. It's one of the annoying things about Anet users' talk pages, but they're obviously an exception that we have to make do with. I would oppose it for normal users. -- pling User Pling sig.png 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 22:37, 2 Aug 2010 (UTC)

image -> contributions
By the way, why the policy doesn't allow images to link to contributions? - J.P.  <font color="Black">Talk  19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why others might not want an image redirecting to contributions, but I personally despise images that redirect to Contributions because they don't leave a 'paper trail' (they don't leave a little "redirected from <x>" link), and so it's a pain in the ass to get to the image, and properties doesn't give you the URL you need anyway- you have to manually type out/butcher a url to get to the image you want without being redirected, as I pointed out here- you can see an example of how long that URL is there. – Emmett  21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the image is a legal image, there really is no reason to get to the image, by anyone other than the owner. If they aren't capable of navigating to it, they shouldn't be doing it. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just what i thought. But now that i think about it, it's kinda selfish. - <font color="Black">J.P. [[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] <font color="Black">Talk  02:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL requires (visible) attribution, though, Wyn. But that is what Special:ListTransclusions is for. poke | talk 07:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

another proposal try
There has been ongoing dicussion on my user page about my clearly nondisruptive signature which I identify myself with because of some stiff rule that was tried to get changed several times already (see above) and that has additional images in mind. I therefore propose this amendment to the GW:SIGN policy: -- 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you use a single image to represent your signature, this image may be a maximum of 80x19 / 100x19 (you decide) pixels large and no additional images may be used in your signature. The image must display your user name in a readable manner and not be considered disruptive, aswell as link to your user page or user talk page."
 * Considering this has been brought up multiple times before, and that the community has in the past reached the consensus of not modifying the policy (or has failed to come to a consensus of modifying it), I don't think you'll get anywhere without having an extremely convincing argument - a lot of points have been dragged on ad infinitum previously so there's probably not a lot new that you could say, and the community hasn't changed so drastically that this change will be accepted without one. A large part of the policy-discussing community don't think that the rule is unacceptably "stiff". -- pling User Pling sig.png 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes my suggestion different is that it's a suggestion that doesn't give way to the "slippery slope" thing that was brought up time and time again. Like someone said on my userpage, these discussions ended in "but what if someone wants 10000x19", just set ONE standard for signatures that consist of an image only, this is something new. The existing restriction is for pictures that are attached in addition to normal signature text, and so were the proposals in the past, if I look up here. --[[Image:User Taki Fujiko Takisig2.png]] 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we can just go to color usages and such and dig out all the bad examples we had in the very beginning.. (see archive) poke | talk 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is because you have not been on GWW very long Taki. We have had multiple occasions of redirects becoming broken when the wiki software has been updated. It often takes days to get things fixed, or in worse cases, we have had to reupload images. I just don't see how having image only links can be a good thing. Also, as far as you keeping your image until consensus against your proposal is reached, well, that's not how it's done. You need to change your signature until your proposal is accepted, otherwise you are in violation of current policy. I already pointed this out to you on your talk page. -- Wyn  talk  12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, your proposal would still the use of the "single icon" custom, and be worded along the lines of:
 *  *Images -> Aditionally, a single image of lenght no higher than 100x19 can be used as replacement of the user's name. The image must redirect to the user's talk page and the user's name must be clearly visible. 
 * That doesn't sound "that bad" really, since it's no really different than using "random-font001 not found on all windows versions". We would need to include weight limits and restrictions to the image type (specifically, no animations).--Fighterdoken 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always have supported a one-image sig, but people fail to see how truly harmless it'd be. Also, the very thing I've been referring to isn't even archived yet. I reccommend reading the current page in its entirety, Taki.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.png anguard  22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Image type jpeg or png, image must be in the specific 100x19 format (no bigger pictures downsized by wiki code), no animations as already defined for other images. --[[Image:User Taki Fujiko Takisig2.png]] 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the perpetual redirect problems we have had when the wiki software is updated, not to mention the instances where images just get lost during these upgrades and have to be reuploaded, I'm against this type of signature. A text link is always going to be a sure way to reach a user's page, while redirects get broken. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current signature with images. If you make it longer, people may not link their images to their talk pages or user pages as would or should be suggested. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to desperately find arguments against image signatures. While Wyn's concerns may be valid (I've never seen any redirect get broken unless the page was moved), Ariyen yours don't make any sense. First, whats "make it longer" supposed to mean? My sig is hardly longer than yours (and btw way shorter in markup text) and I can show you hundreds of text-based sigs here that are longer and in part visually disturbing. Second, people may or may not link to anything, this isn't anything image specific. If I write my name into the sig field and check the wikitext option I'll get an unlinked signature, easy as that - you don't need any images to do that. Oh and regarding the threats to take away my editing rights (esentially a ban), I will remove the signature if a concensus against my proposal is reached. --[[Image:User Taki Fujiko Takisig2.png]] 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't decide things here by vote, outside elections. - <font color="Orange">J.P. [[Image:User J.P. Halloween sig.png| ]] <font color="Orange">Talk  18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should remove it until consensus has been reached in support of your signature - as of now, it's still against the policy, which is the current consensus. -- pling User Pling sig.png 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy already has points to deal with what you've stated, Taki. Signatures require links, and signature that are too long or "visually disturbing" are routinely noted as such on the user's talk page, and fixed. I really don't see why the policy should be changed to allow for larger images, especially at the expense of any/all text links. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See, signatures require links. The images wouldn't be an exception, I don't see how "some users wouldn't link to their user page" then. Why "at the expense of"? Text signatures would be unaffected.
 * Btw I find black signatures visually disturbing, because you can't distinguish them from normal text (standard link text is blue) >_> but I don't force others to change their color. --[[Image:User Taki Fujiko Takisig2.png]] 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't require signatures to please everyone. The "at the expense of" is in reference to your proposal allowing signatures that are comprised completely of images. They get a longer image, but it doesn't allow for text links. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the joke of a tally has been removed. consensus via discussion is what makes a wiki a wiki. - Auron 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've never seen any redirect get broken unless the page was moved"

At the end of the day, we are a wiki about documenting a game. What does it matter if we "stifle people's creativity" when it comes to making signatures? Spending this much time discussing it even is pretty ridiculous. There may not be strong reasoning for the 19x19 image limit, there is some reasoning but it's not amazing, there is actually no valid reason for increasing the limit. "I would like to use a bigger image" is not a valid reason. We could ban all images, would not hurt the site and its purpose. Maybe it's time to start using my signature from PvX. I don't have the right image uploaded here =/  <font color="#00dd00">Misery <font color="#00ee00">Says <font color="#00ff00">Moo   13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I prefer to see a Difference, between PvX and GWW. I have difference signatures different places, even image signature on a forum, but to me this site is to document a game, not show off my signature, hence reason I think that some prefer not to be 'outspoken' with 'big images' (more than 19x19) or really a 'Show off' name. We're not really here for that, shouldn't be anyway. It use to not be based on 'popularity' as much as what one could actually 'do', etc. (Yea, actually been on here as a different ip, when I was on my own.) -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just showcasing how gaudy my signature is there, while still being policy legal here. The two sites are very different, PvX isn't really about documenting anything, it's about circle jerking. <font color="#A55858">Misery  15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Break

 * How about,
 * "You may use an image that is not longer than your signature would be in 14pt Arial Black and not taller than 19 pixels."
 * There's no BS slippery slope because it's a hard limit that remains functional regardless of name length, so "User:Bob" can't go for the 9,001x19 image and say it adheres to policy.
 * Are there any reasons why this shouldn't be done? [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  06:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read my comments at all Raine? -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The wiki is for documentation, etc." I've gathered that to be your major grievance with the idea; is there anything further?  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  06:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Images are less reliable than text" was actually what Wyn's been posting about. On a sidenote, you realize your sig breaks policy, right Raine? - Tanetris 06:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The markup is too long and I'm technically impersonating another user; was there something else?
 * Also, I'll look for the "images are less reliable" argument; I missed it someplace. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here and here specifically, but with all the general image problems we have had (most of which are also documented in those archives) I don't feel that relying solely on an image as a direct contact (which is ultimately what a signature is for) for a user is a good idea. If there wasn't so much of a history of problems, I wouldn't be concerned. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of restricting signature image size more strictly for users with shorter user names. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Wynthyst: from what I read there, the issue has been fixed. Were there repeat occurrences after this fix was implemented that would compel you to believe that there is still an issue there?  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  06:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Gordon Ecker: My intention is to allow users to create image signatures in fonts that may or may not be supported; hence, a limit on image size based on name length. While the above proposal may not properly reflect that, please understand that it is not designed to be a "final solution" so much as a new concept; any sort of refinement would be welcome.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  06:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that they've said before it's been fixed, and then it happens again? When the base code of Media Wiki changes without them realizing it and they push an update live only to find out the bugs after? I'm not dissing the IT staff, but considering it's happened at least twice, there is always the potential it may happen again, and I don't see the reason to do this. Signatures are for allowing easy access to user and user talk pages, not for expressing creativity. User pages do that, and we have very few rules regarding user pages. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The two links show that it was "to be fixed" (but not, in fact, fixed) in June and fixed the following January; has it been an issue since then?
 * Signatures also serve the purpose of allowing readers to quickly distinguish posters at a glance; for this purpose, more variant signatures like Salomes or my own (albeit, without the policy violations) are better. While more allowance for variation does allow creativity to have a greater influence, it does have a practical benefit.  Unless creativity is a "bad thing", allowing further variation would have a benefit greater than its (otherwise non-existent) drawback.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  07:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The image redirects are broken with every MediaWiki upgrade; simply because MW decided with MW1.12 to change the code to make it a "feature" that images can't redirect to pages in other mainspace. As we are however relying on those redirects we modify the MW core code to make it working again, however that requires time and unless it's done the redirects are broken. And even though I provided the code changes for the recent upgrade months before it was changed, the redirects were still broken for quite a while because they forgot to include the changes in the end. We can simply not rely on features that are not part of the core MediaWiki code or compatible extensions that work even with upgrading. It's bad enough that normal next-to-text signature images or skill image redirects break in such situtions. poke | talk 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to throw in my 2 cents, I have to agree with Taki on this. I personally wouldn't be changing my sig, but I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy the amends.-- Unen ding  fear   13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poke's comment (which evidently echoed Wyn's earlier statements) is, imo, the first actual reason I've seen for disallowing image-only signatures, and what's more, it's an extremely good one! I propose adding something about that to the policy, I think it will deter future requests. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To expand on my proposal, I suggest adding the following text to the Images header:

Tanetris, some people don't care about enforcing policy unless it applies to certain people.69.182.188.52 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Signatures consisting only of an image are discouraged (disallowed?) due to MediaWiki image redirect issues.
 * [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I'm reading here, there is a fix (on-hand, at that) to the drawback of image-only signatures which, as several other images have the same issue, will have to be applied with each upgrade (so long as said "feature" remains), regardless of the signature policy.
 * If this is the case, then having signatures composed of only images is still a non-issue, no? [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the redirect function is something that is hard coded into the Media Wiki software and may change with subsequent updates, rendering the current "fix" non-functional, could mean that once again, redirects could break and take days to get fixed. If we allow image only signatures that would render them useless for that amount of time. Is it really worth it? -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes ^-^-- Unen ding  fear  User Unendingfear Gw2flyingmountsiglol.png 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. de   Kooning  18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or people can just put forth the effort to type in a small name to get where they want. They'd live.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.png anguard  18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it wouldn't render the images useless. You'd just click on the image, be brought to the image page, and click on the non-functional redirect link below it. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While, that's a good idea. Some may think, "That's too much effort." -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the incident of MW botching the redirects should completely veto the concept of larger image/image-only sigs. To me it seems the equivalent keeping a good pair of shoes in the cupboard just because you might step into a puddle with them eventually. [[image:User_Yena_Newsig1.png‎|Talk‎]] ena. <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what you get from pushing yourself up by one argument... poke | talk 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "On a sidenote, you realize your sig breaks policy, right Raine?"
 * GF, stop with the whole "biasing" crap, it's getting old! <font color="Blue">Shadow <font color="Cyan">Runner  01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Something else that I am not sure that has been considered or not. In HTML there is the ability to have alternate text display if for some reason the associated image is unusable (not available).  I do not know the wiki setup well enough to know if this works, but if it does, it could be a possible issue resolver that Wyn seems to be concerned with.69.182.188.52 01:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that the images might possibly not display, but that they might possibly not redirect for a couple of days if our current solution to the issue is incompatible with a newer version of mediawiki.
 * As per my sig breaking policy, I'd direct you to my talkpage. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As per my sig breaking policy, I'd direct you to my talkpage. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

length
Is there a specific limitation on the length of a signature? If not, I would like to request the anal users of gww to lawyer out some specific limitation on how long a sig is allowed to be, so that I can avoid being banned by (or wave policy in the face of) anal admins and may continue shitting around unfettered on the wiki. Maf procrastinates on his homework. 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy already contains all the information you need:
 * "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."


 * "Your signature should neither inconvenience nor annoy other editors."


 * "Use short signatures, both in display and markup."

Why is that so difficult for you? Your signature is not a creative expression of who you are, or a tweet about what you are currently doing. It's to identify which user is posting and providing an easy access link to your userspace so people can contact you if they wish. -- Wyn  talk  13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Extra text (as you have now) is generally frowned upon, and most users find it annoying as it does nothing to further identify you, and simply lengthens your signature needlessly. Long signatures clutter up talk pages, I would seriously recommend you simply use your username (or a recognizable version of it Maf for instance) and stop pushing the limits. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any numbers there. I would not be pushing any limits if there was a number, which is what I was getting at.  Otherwise I could just argue that it only annoyed the 3 or 4 people that actually complained on my talk page, and didn't bother the other hundreds (?) of users that didn't leave me a note saying "hey, you're doing okay sig-wise; keep up the good work." Maf has been using Maf in sigs. 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that other editors did not leave a note because there were already notes on your page regarding your signature. Quite a novel idea to some, I'm sure, but piling on complaint after complaint about the same thing is rarely beneficial to any of the involved parties. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 13:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are not going to add some arbitrary number. Use what common sense you have and simply keep it short and simple, without any useless, unnecessary text, no one cares if you are procrastinating on your homework, or using Maf in sigs, just make it Maf, or Mafaraxas. "Extra text (as you have now) is generally frowned upon"

Feedback


Hai guise.

Are feedback links acceptable in signatures? They don't have the can't-get-to-image-easily issue Emmett outlined above.

A F K When  Needed 20:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and sorry if I missed consensus above, but it seemed to be left in the air. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K  When  Needed 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with pling's comment. Not a useful addition. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of an image.
Someone has found an interesting loophole and, of course, a controversy has arisen. Spanish Shadow uses a single (one) image twice in her signature. Even the revision just made does not clarify the propriety of this particular creative maneuver. The image is smaller than usual so it is not an issue of screen space or bandwidth. --Max 2 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That issue has been resolved and the policy amended to clarify that. poke | talk 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that Shadow has been brow-beaten into submission, but there is still a problem with the policy as stated; a problem you might miss because English is not your native language. Shadow only used one image repeatedly. The ambiguity is between the number of different 'File:...'s and the number of references to 'File:...'s. By implication, the policy means the number of references is limited to one and that multiple references to the same 'File:...' are not allowed, but it does not say that. It fails to distinguish between 'File:...'s and references to 'File:...'s. --Max 2 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, but I really can't come up with a wording that explains just that and doesn't suck. Suggestions? &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 21:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that should fall into the "we know what it means, so no wikilawyering" category.


 * If you still feel the need to  fall for trolling  make it clearer, how about something like "A single instance of a single small image or icon may be included in your signature"?.--Fighterdoken 21:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me, if it seriously is required... - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk </b> 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth is wrong with that signature? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ  аІiсә  [[File:User Aliceandsven 3.png]]  ѕνәи  Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 00:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Timestamps
I'm not a fan of the custom timestamps that have been popping up. One of the most important things about timestamps is their uniformity - format (i.e. "24h time, day full-month-name year (UTC)"), colour, and size. The custom timestamps, by their very nature, differ quite a lot. Some examples:


 * <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 08:09, 28 July 2010
 * 21:06, 28 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * 17:30, 27 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * 6:44, 27 Jul 2010 (UTC)

The normal timestamp, for comparison, is:
 * 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add something like "Do not use a customised timestamp in your signature" in the "Customizing your signature" section, maybe under "Appearance". Maybe it could be better worded, but that's the essence of this proposal. -- pling 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy q_q - Mini Me   talk  21:26, 28 July 2010
 * I Dont think the ones in the grey font or small sizes are so bad.. though i do hate the pink font, How about "No obnoxious timestamp fonts" ?-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ya it's starting to get distracting. I'm in support of standardizing the timestamp. --<font color="limegreen" size="2px">Dominator <font color="mediumblue" size="1px">Matrix  21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last one makes me throw up a little in my mouth.-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 21:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find all custom timestamps annoying to the eye. - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk </b> 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of a problem with them, though as soon as they turn different colours (sharply) and fonts, there's an issue. Examples such as the first on on the list are fine imo. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a complete ban on custom timestamps. <font color="Black">Shadow <font color="Red">Runner  22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just keep to greyscale & a set font? --[[Image:User_Chieftain_Alex_Chieftain Signature.png]] Chieftain  Alex 22:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your premise:
 * "One of the most important things about timestamps is their uniformity"


 * Why is this one of the most important things about timestamps? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 23:23, 28 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I love you too, Neil. --- Ness [[File:User Ness Hrin SigIcon.png]] Hrin | 23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because timestamps should be easy to differentiate, and if you're looking at the formatting, it can be difficult for us old some people to quickly see the time difference. That being said, I'm not too concerned with any of the examples (except for the last -- thought it was comic sans at first), but if anyone has a custom timestamp that is not UTC, that would be really annoying. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24hr UTC, in order and readable seems like the only criteria needed. And maybe an aesthetic requirement for those with no taste. --67.240.88.57 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not just standardize the format? 24h UTC?  Obviously, having them all on the same time scale and in the same time zone is necessary, and I agree that that should be standardized by the policy.
 * What I don't agree with is standardizing the font, size, or color; any argument that could be made against their customization could be made against the same customization in a signature (i.e. "It's distracting", "It's hard to read", "It makes the information that it is intended to convey more difficult to instantly recognize"); precedent says that those issues aren't a big enough deal to standardize over. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 0:13, 29 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I agree with Raine here. 24h UTC and readable is all I can see being enforced by policy. Colors and font and the rest of that stuff is up to the user (within reason, obviously - I don't think any of the examples listed are exceedingly hard to read, bar *maybe* Lania's pink one). - Auron 00:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize with people who have difficulty reading certain font-faces/font-sizes/colors. Maybe at the most standardize time-stamps to greyscale, between x and x font-size, and whatever font families that include cursive/script faces...  I strongly object to banning customization however... If you're looking for the timestamp it's easy enough to find, look for their name and then look to the right, read the time.  I don't see a point to any argument other than difficulty of reading (such as hot pink or light grey).  EDIT: Oh and UTC  Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ  аІiсә  [[File:User Aliceandsven 3.png]]  ѕνәи  Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All for keeping the formatting consistent (i.e. Time, Date, (UTC)), but worrying about timestamps being ugly is pretty obnoxious. People always seem to be concerned that people will make ugly signatures, etc. Trust me, if you want an ugly, horrifying signature it is very easy to make it within the current rules. Anything about readibility is already covered by policy is it not? <font color="#A55858">Misery  07:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed my time-stamp for now, and reverted to the default color to black instead of magenta, just with smaller font. I realize that some colors render differently on different monitors and maybe colors like magenta render lighter as pink, making it harder to read.  In any case, as long as timestamps are readable, standard format and UTC I don't see any problems with it.  -- Lania[[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]19:23, 30 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Tell me which one of these 'custom' time stamps are easy to read.

Look at it, and tell everyone what you think that really makes the time stamp harder to read. →← 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC) He asked which attribute made the timestamps harder to read. I feel that color is the most prominent difference of the presented options. I never said that all color on any form of a signature is a bad thing. I was merely answering his question. --- <font color="#887a5d">Ness  Hrin | 1:29, 31 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, on that last one, "(UTC)" kind of looks like "CUTO". &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 21:28, 30 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last one aside, the colors (excluding gray) are distracting from everything else. Just my thoughts, though. --- <font color="#887a5d">Ness [[File:User Ness Hrin SigIcon.png]] Hrin |  22:51, 30 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't really get the fuss over the time stamp. Is it really that important that it needs to all look the same? I see a lot of signatures that look way more distracting than a small timestamp with a different color.  That said, the weird fonts are way too hard to read. As far as colors go, I didn't have any problems reading any of them with the standard fonts. --Lania[[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 0:41, 31 Jul 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * Ness - have you even looked at the color in people's signatures? Pling has a blue font and blue image. Dominator has a lime green sig. Freedom has a bold blue, Alice has a bright teal, Raine has a deep red, and Halogod has ridiculous green and blue text with a huge image in the middle as a sig. After all that, you're going to tell me that perfectly readable but differently colored timestamps are "distracting?" - Auron 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Look at it, and tell everyone what you think that really makes the time stamp harder to read."
 * And Auron's is black. That makes it a bitch to find at a glance.  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 2:24, 31 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I always think it was someone that didn't sign until I find the -Auron tag. In anycase, what does it matter if the time stamp is even remotely hard to read?  Is there some kind of admin action or janitorial type stuff that demands the utmost readability of the time stamp that I'm not aware of? Yes I changed my Sig color, now it's the same color as the red text on the GW2 website. Yay now I also have a gaudy signature! XD.  --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 5:11, 31 Jul 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * Well, a good example would be like the fact when there's posting on pages and people put the posts out of order because it's by reply, then the dates would be off. Also, like understanding when the edits were made on normal skill pages. Like if it was information from 2007, then it probably doesn't matter to current subject. People want to be able to come here and get the information they need without trying to decipher the shit. Like, if you had that last time stamp that looks like cuto, you're going to be there for a while. `→[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 05:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone said anything about wanting to use impossible to read funky fonts. Color is about the only issue here.  I can see how the talk page example would be annoying but using different colors that minimally impact readability would hardly be a burden on figuring out the order of the replies, or when the comment was posted. --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 6:07, 31 Jul 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * Colored timestamps are not distracting or disruptive. If I started replacing the timestamp in my signature with 64-bit Unix time, that would be disruptive.  (On a side note, I have wanted to do this for some time, but cbfed learning enough HTML to do it.)  –Jette 0000000000000000000000000000000001001100010100111110111100001110

Time/date format
Ok, it seems there isn't consensus for standardising the appearance (e.g. colour, font, etc) - the normal rules for sig appearances would apply. However, the time/date format should still be standardised - full 24 hour time, full date, the UTC label. The time should include the 0 during a.m. times; I've seen some signatures that are "1:29" instead of "01:29", which could be ambiguous. Also, the month name should be in full: "August" instead of "Aug". -- pling 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . poke | talk 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that poke, I wasn't entirely sure how to fix it. However, now there is a pesky 0 in front of non-double-digit dates. Oh well, small price. --- <font color="#887a5d">Ness [[File:User Ness Hrin SigIcon.png]] Hrin | 18:49, 08 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea and I agree. Poke, I used your time/date code to change my custom timestamp to conform :-). --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania  [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 21:57, 08 August 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * , 27 August 2024 (UTC)
 * That code gives you exactly what the (default) time stamp does (obviously if you use it in a sig, you'd have to subst each of them), in UTC time. (i'm not quite sure about the month one, there's also "CURRENTMONTHGEN" which gives the month name in genitive form, but me sucking at English language, doesn't understand the difference (it doesn't make a difference for August anyway). There are others that give slightly different outputs (see here) but I don't think most of them wouldn't be acceptable personally (such as having the month number instead of name), the only one that may be usable;e is the CURRENTDAY2 (which pads the date with a 0. Certainly, only the ones that are "CURRENT" should be used (they give UTC time instead of the LOCAL which goes by server <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian  <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  22:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, that takes up waaay too much space for a limited-character signature to be effective. --- <font color="#887a5d">Ness [[File:User Ness Hrin SigIcon.png]] Hrin | 23:41, 08 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is you have the rest of your sig on a separate page (typically a user:Username/sig.js) and you have:
 * then you only sign with 3 tildes instead of 4 (otherwise you get a double timestamp), and you shouldn't hit the character limit (unless you have a really long username and are heavily customising the timestamp). <font color="#4169E1"> ~ PheNaxKian <font color="#8A2BE2">talk  00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The default is .  The only difference is the 0 in front of single-digit dates, and it only really matters for the sake of consistency.
 * In other news, I don't see why  is required, since the standard is 24-hour, anyway: this eliminates and ambiguity ("3" can't be PM because there is no "3 PM").  Similarly, I don't see how "Aug" is any more ambiguous than "August"; they're both very clearly saying that the month is August and I don't believe anyone would question that.
 * Is there any particular reason why we're pushing for these to be dictated by policy? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dictating is fun you hippie.--The Emmisary 01:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure as hell is, and that's why I'm wondering whether this is being dictated for a reason or because YAY DICTATING, GUYS!! &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 01:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably more for relative consistency. May just be my interpretation, though. (Also, thanks for j > d) --- <font color="#887a5d">Ness [[File:User Ness Hrin SigIcon.png]] Hrin | 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the questions we need to ask are:
 * "What is the purpose of a timestamp?"
 * I'm under the impression that the purpose of a timestamp is to denote when an edit was made.
 * "How could a timestamp be altered?"
 * One possible alteration would be cutting out unnecessary text while leaving the information unchanged (i.e. shortening "February" to "Feb").
 * "Would said alteration impede said purpose?"
 * This wouldn't impede the purpose of a timestamp at all, unless I'm mistaken about the purpose of a timestamp?
 * So: is there any reason not to? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 02:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you're very welcome. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 02:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure where this "push" for consistency and standardization came from, but this doesn't seem too oppressive as long as it doesn't end up being policy and chastise people who don't conform. Aug or August I don't really care. --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania  [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 05:23, 09 August 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * My bad Raine, I have fixed it above. Thanks. poke | talk 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure where this "push" for consistency and standardization came from, but this doesn't seem too oppressive as long as it doesn't end up being policy and chastise people who don't conform. Aug or August I don't really care. --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania  [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 05:23, 09 August 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * My bad Raine, I have fixed it above. Thanks. poke | talk 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp Links
Would anyone be opposed to me making my timestamp a link to, say, my contribs? &mdash; Raine Valen   02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed at all... then again I seem to be one of the renegades that like to really mess with the timestamp. --<font color ="#8b0701">Lania  [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]<FONT COLOR ="black"> 05:24, 09 August 2010 (UTC)</FONT>
 * Your signature code is already pretty long. It's kind of bothersome when the sig takes up an entire line (in edit view) alone. Think of the children, or something. Vili &#x70B9; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 06:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)