Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive4

A whole different take on enforcement
After reading through the archived discussions, more things are clear to me on this issue than ever before. In particular, one thing that's very clear to me is that there are passionate people on almost every side of the signature issue. The current policy is, at best, a compromise - and although it isn't a happy compromise, no replacements have reached concensus.

Concensus is the ideal state of any wiki discussion. Compromise, while occasionally just as good, is not the same thing... and I'm interested to see if there is a way to do this that would reach concensus.

Meanwhile, there *is* (to my mind at least) a good reason to allow images, and even to allow images wider than 19 pixels. That reason is, simply, that GWW is NOT the original wiki for Guild Wars. Almost all of us migrated here from GuildWiki... and some have drifted back and forth over trivial issues like this one. Arguably, "the community" encompasses all of us who play GuildWars and believe in the wiki format - which means users of both wikis. Inasmuch as it is the purpose of signatures to be consistent, it should not be the policy of this wiki to force users from the other wiki to have a different identity here.

More to the point... a signature is an identity. Although technically "your signature is annoying" is not a violation of GWW:NPA, it feels a lot like one - which causes hurt feelings, which leads to wikidrama and arguments and precisely the kind of grief that this talk page has seen too much of already.

The ultimate 'point' of signature policy is to keep signatures from being annoying ... but no hard-and-fast rules can accomplish that. If a user's goal is to be annoying, they can do it without violating policy... and there is no way a policy can be written that will ever really stop that. The only possible policy that will prevent annoying signatures is... to make "no annoying signatures" the soul and substance of the rule.

In any case, the final decision of 'to ban or not to ban' would fall to the bureaucrats. Why not simply let them be the final arbiters of what is annoying?

I would propose that the signature appearance rules be thus: (a) Absolute rules concerning what isn't allowable at all. This would include height restrictions (to avoid disrupting text), animations, transclusions, and other stuff that isn't in question. An absolute limit on the code length of a signature, if we have one, would go here. (b) Guidelines. This would discuss items that are allowable within reason, but can become annoying if abused. This would cover image width, font changes, super/subscripting, color definitions, etc. A suggested limit on the visual 'footprint' of a signature would go here. (c) Enforcement rules. Simply put, I would state that if you find a signature obnoxious, put it up for an RFC. If there is concensus that it is annoying, the bureaucrats are permitted to demand a change. If there is not concensus, but at least three different users object, then the signature may be declared annoying at the bureaucrats' discretion (which is the basis on which they are elected anyway). If there is concensus that the signature is not annoying, or if no more than two uses find it to be annoying, then the signature may stand as-is.

Ideas? Suggestions? (AUNTMOUSIE under protest) 08:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * idea and suggestion: (not to you but to those who want wider pics at any cost) accept that the image in your sig is supposed to be an icon and not a picture o.O have a look at talk pages here at GWW. those small icons look pretty nice. then look at the widescreen banners that are allowed elsewhere and tell me that looks nice. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px]] 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing you have to take into account is the fact that a signature with a 19px wide image can be exactly the same code length as a signature with a 1000px wide image; yes I am exaggerating a bit but you hopefully will see my reason for doing so. Personally while I don't mind having images in signatures I don't really see any reason to remove the width restriction. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "there *is* a good reason to allow images [...]. That reason is, simply, that GWW is NOT the original wiki for Guild Wars." - huh? The reason that we should allow images and signatures as they exist on GuildWiki is because GWW is not GuildWiki? Sorry, but I don't get the point.
 * I don't want larger images because the page will look messy. By looking at some talk pages over at GuildWiki, or looking at this example, I think it is quite easy to understand that. poke | talk 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the reason against larger images because of messiness. I mean, just look at the link that poke just posted; quoted from that page, "my eyes bleed!" And I appreciate the thought you've put into the proposal, Auntmousie, I'm afraid that looks like an unnecessarily long process just to come to a consensus as to whether a certain user's signature image is annoying or not. In my experience (and this could be different in actuality), you're the first one that has really come forward to advocate for wider images, while the majority seems not to care/doesn't want larger images. In my opinion, that's pretty much a consensus. Anyway, it's far too late, and I have to get up in three hours, so I'm going to leave it there for now. Kokuou 12:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the issue of GWW policy vs. GuildWiki policy is totally moot. While we do share many members, we are in fact separate entities.  The small sig icons are fine, I see no real reason to change them and I agree that the width of the image in no way impacts the length of the code, and therefore needs to be regulated separately.  If a user's wiki 'identity' is that important to them, they should create one that conforms with the strictest of the policies on the various wiki's they participate in and use that across the board and be guaranteed to not have any problems anywhere.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png |Go to Wynthyst's Talk page]] Wynthyst 12:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)
 * My point isn't that GWW and GuildWiki are the same entity, but rather that we share and serve the same community.
 * Whether smaller icons do or do not look nicer is a matter of opinion.
 * It has been mentioned here and elsewhere that the point of the size restriction is to make it an icon, not an image. While that fine distinction *does* have meaning in the computer world, most of the icons I'm familiar with (say, on my desktop) are 32x32.  19px in height, in order to preserve line spacing, makes sense.  It does not follow that the icon must remain square.  In fact, it would make at least equal sense to allow "truncated icons" of 32x19 pixels, or to allow a total area no larger than a 32x32 icon (1024 total pixels, which would be up to 53x19).
 * Lastly and specifically to Kokuou, I am definitely not the first person to question the size restriction policy. You don't have to even open the archives to find others.  Scroll up to  First Principles above.
 * Anyway, I've said my peace. I look at the hours I've spent discussing this issue, think of the drops I could've collected and the XP I could have earned while doing so, and I'm left with a surprising level of apathy. [[Image:User_Auntmousie_19x19Jrat.jpg| ]] (AUNTMOUSIE) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone can ever convince you that 19x19 is a good limit so I won't try. Just some observations:
 * We have PxVwiki users as well. If anything, the wiki with a userbase most similar to this one is GW2W. While many of the GWW community came from GuildWiki, most on both chose to work on only one of the two.
 * Instead of discussing icon size, let's look at enforcement. One way to look at it is that the bigger the leeway, the greater the chance of an incident where users to go beyond your proposed guidelines (which, incidentally, is already in the policy; some of them are intended to sound like guidelines).
 * Your point on this being a passionate issue is correct. Work on the enforcement rules. One of the reason why this policy (and the user page policy) is very passionately discussed is simply due to its subjectivity. It is simply something that's very difficult to apply rules on, so what we have is a compromise. If you can come up with a good and unambiguous enforcement section, you'd probably get bigger support. One thing to keep in mind: If we passed 32x19 as being acceptable, the next "battle" we'll fight is with some user who thinks 50x19 is perfectly fine. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your forbearance on arguing the size issue; in like courtesy, I'll try to restrict myself to responding to your comments (where made) and, beyond that, not make this about image sizes.
 * That said, since you brought it up, I will briefly respond; your point (that given any limit, someone will argue that it's restrictive) is precisely why I would prefer to have no specified limit. If you don't have a line in the sand, the temptation to stick a toe past it is eliminated.  I understand that with "no limit" many users fear (reasonably, IMO) the kind of abuses that poke cited above... but I'd like to think that more general guidelines could be written that still effectively exclude those.  And with that said, any less-restrictive policy needs toothy enforcement to keep people from treading over it.  So let's give that a shot first.
 * Personally I think RfC is a good place to air concerns about a signature. For the sake of argument, let's say that a signature compaint must meet three criteria:  (1) the complaint must be signed by a registered user. (2) the complaint should include a link to an instance of the offending signature, a   rendering of the underlying wikicode, and minimal screenshot depicting how that signature appeared at the time of the complaint (in case it is retroactively changed).  (3) the complaint must list, as specifically as possible, what's problematic about the signature.  Additionally, the offending user should be notified of the RfC post on their talk page.
 * After that ... well, let's assume for the moment that the rules are clear and unambiguous (whether or not they are relaxed from their present incarnation). Given clear and unambiguous rules to enforce, it should be a simple matter to determine whether a signature is or isn't allowable.  Any bureaucrat has the authority to confirm the infraction.  Within one week, the signature must be corrected; responding to the RfC with an acceptable signature will constitute proof that the signature has been corrected.  If the offending signature shows up again more than one week after the RfC complaint is confirmed, the offending user is subject to a ban.  Clear enough so far? [[Image:User_Auntmousie_19x19Jrat.jpg| ]] (AUNTMOUSIE) 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Without a line in the sand, there's also nothing marking the bounds of acceptability. I did try a no-hard-limits approach before, but as you said, many did not like it and a couple of specific limits (it was on the length iirc) got put back in. There's one problem that you will need to address with leaving the decision to a particular subset of users. Some users just won't like it when consensus is skipped and authority goes straight to a subset of users.


 * Suggesting bureaucrats helps mitigate this a little I suppose. But bureaucrat terms are fixed. A signature that's fine for bureaucrat A might get rejected by bureaucrat B. Of course, you could say joint unanimous decision is required or that old decisions can't be overturned. It gets real icky when bureaucrats A, B, and C previously approved signature A, but later on, bureaucrats C, D, and E rejected signature B, despite it being quite similar to signature A...


 * Also, with the general understanding that bureaucrats are supposed to get involved in conflicts only a last resort, I'm not sure how much support you'd get to make bureaucrats the sole decider of what is a good signature, which is essentially a trivial subject. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 09:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What if the image is larger but doesnt disrupt the text spacing or readability?
I'd really like to use this: LunarEffect as my sig...but...the image is larger...however it doesnt disrupt page at all. What do you think? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by LunarEffect (talk &bull; contribs) at 18:04, June 2, 2008 (UTC).
 * Based on the above wider images section I'd say the answer would be no. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, sorry I forgot to sign that xD. Yeah, you are right, I'm aware of that section. However though, rules should always be validated in regard to their point or what they are meant to protect. Since this signature suggestion doesn't disturb the text spacing or readability, does it really matter so much? =) LunarEffect 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, I give up, I just noticed that this seems to perform an auto break straight after the image...and I can't get it to display properly in IE...it is a [[Image:User_LunarEffect_gradient.png]] cool effect though, huh? =) LunarEffect 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New trend developing?
Ok, I don't know that this is a huge problem, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.

"The image used is constrained to a maximum size of 19x19 pixels, to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability."

That line indicates that all sig images need to be 19x19 pixels. More and more people seem to be uploading larger images and then sizing them within the signature code by adding |19px after the image name. While this technically makes the image 19 pixels wide, it doesn't guarantee a 19 pixel (or less) height depending on the proportions of the image. I thought the entire reason for this limitation was to stop signatures from breaking text lines, but allowing the uploading of larger sig images and letting them size them in code, we face the same issue.-- Wynthyst 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not really a matter of acting in bad faith, but just a coding problem. I think image resize only allows the width limit to be set, and since we tell users to use the 19x19 limit, they just add |19px, without realizing that the image is not in compliance with GWW:SIGN. For those cases i have seen, i have told the users that their signature image needs a resize (usually to |15px), and they have had no problem doing so until now. --Fighterdoken 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never meant to imply they were acting in bad faith, just that they don't understand what that code actually does. Which would make it just much easier to keep signature icons being uploaded to 19x19. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wynthyst 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, i see where you are going, but "requiring" a 19x19 px size could put some problems on challenged image-editing people (i mean, your own signature is not 19x19, even if still in compliance). I guess we just need to put some "reminders" on the people that fails to meet the limit, which is explicitly stated as 19x19 maximum, and not as "use |19px".--Fighterdoken 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok.. like I said, I don't know that it's a huge issue, and I will just continue to fix images I find that need it, including my own :P --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wynthyst 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wtf?
Not letting us link to pages in our userspace in our sig? Why is that there? It's arbitrary and, as far as I can tell, unnecessary. -- Armond Warblade 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this means sysops can't link to ADMIN in their sigs, which is really quite a useful trick (as it lets new users easily see who's an admin, and lets everyone know when a new admin is promoted, assuming they put the link in their sig). -- Armond Warblade 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In discussions, administrators are not better than normal users so there is no need to make clear that they are administrators. If people want to contact administrators, they can do that via the admin noticeboad or by choosing one from the list of administrators. poke | talk 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because discussions are the only things administrators do on talk pages, amirite?
 * Regardless, that's a lie - or it should be. The administrators are those whose judgment we trust enough to grant special tools; that ought to be enough to earn the respect of others, or at least enough to make them aware of the fact that they're sysops. It also makes it far more clear - to a new user, at the very least, who isn't nearly as likely to find those links - what's a sysop warning and what's a warning from another user.
 * That's still not the point, though. What's the reasoning behind this restriction? Because it's pretty damn arbitrary and unnecessary from what I can tell. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It is actually necessary since there really is no reason to have any link in your signature other than to your user page and talk page as well as maybe to your contribs. The two primary purposes of your signature on talk pages is to show who commented and when as well as to provide a link to your user page/talk page. One bad thing about allowing other pages to be linked in your signature is that signatures are sort of substituted into a page each time you use ~ or the signature button so they wouldn't be updated if you changed the link. If after a while that page gets deleted; either at user request or for any other reason; this would then create a massive number of red links on multiple pages which would then most likely clog up Wanted pages making it useless. Also in regards to a link to ADMIN for sysops, I'd have to agree with Poke. Yes they've been trusted enough to be granted special tools but that doesn't mean what they post should have any more weight than what a normal user would add. -- Kakarot  11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So if Aiiane goes to warn a random vandal, it shouldn't have any more weight than if an IP did it? No, thanks, I'll pass. Non-admins are capable of being wrong.
 * If someone's dumb enough to have a page their sig's linked to for a while deleted, they should use Special:Whatlinkshere to clean up their own mess. End of subject.
 * Do I need a reason to link to one of my subpages beyond "I'd like to"? Thanks, but I'd rather not be bogged down in policies trying to do something that simple.
 * -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "So if Aiiane goes to warn a random vandal, it shouldn't have any more weight than if an IP did it?" It shouldn't, dude. Stop sleeping through wiki 101 courses. - Auron 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your userpage is your link portal. Your signature is for identification and easy communication, not for advertising links. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|16px|]] Brains12 \ talk 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "If someone's dumb enough to have a page their sig's linked to for a while deleted, they should use Special:Whatlinkshere to clean up their own mess." - no they shouldn't. That's also the reason why you are not allowed to change links to deleted signature icons; it pings the watchlist of very many users. And between a warning from an admin and the warning from a normal user is no difference. Administrators are just to execute... poke | talk 12:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No Linking Amendment?
I recently made the picture in my signature redirect to a random page. This technically isn't linking to anything, but it was changed by Kakarot. Is this breaking the rules or not? The_Nenth  <_<   04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: Nvm, should have read on to the "images" section. The_Nenth   <_<  [[Image:User TheNenth Mendingsig.jpg|19px]] 04:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unique image
Just want something to be cleared up (I think it's been brought up before in an archive, but a few recent events have led me to believe this still isn't clear):

When the policy mentions a "unique image", it is in regards to the filename and not the content, right? That will allow the necessary redirection to the user's userpage/user talk, as the policy says, and allow it to be separate in wiki technicality to the original image filename. The content does not matter -- I could use the monk icon, reupload it under a different name, redirect it to my userpage, and use it as my signature icon, and I would still be following policy, correct? Of course, it's quite a generic, often-used icon which takes some of the recognition factor away, but I'm still not wrong to use it. That's always been my interpretation, and I'd like it to be clarified if that's right or not.-- Brains12 \ talk 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's referring to the filename too since the image policy states that as long as the image is released under GFDL or is an ArenaNet image it is fine to be uploaded here. Also it would make sense for it to mean this since as you say the signature policy requires or at least suggests redirection to the users user/talk page. Personally I prefer signature images to be unique to the person using it; for example since the generic profession images are so widely used it takes away the recognition factor of the image but that's just me. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is Brains. It's so that if someone clicks on that re-uploaded monk icon, they won't get redirected to the Monk article. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image size
Xilarth The Wise is currently using a scaled down 300x300 signature image scaled down to 19x19. Does the image file itself need to be 19x19 or smaller, or can a larger image be used as a signature image if it's scaled down to 19x19? -- Gordon Ecker 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual file size is only 14kb, so I reckon it should be okay, no? As far as I'm aware, even if you scale a picture or image down, your browser still has to load the entire file, but with such a small file size, I don't see any problems as long as the 19px command is in the signature code. Kokuou 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki resizing is different, it creates a whole new file to load. So I don't see any problem with the signature image originally being larger, as long as it is resized in the actual sig. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would only be problematic if someone replaced their old 19x19 or smaller signature image with a new, larger image and didn't update their earlier signatures. -- Gordon Ecker 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, look at that; you really do learn something new everyday. :D I guess that sorts that out. Kokuou 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just go ahead and add 19px to all those old signatures but it'll ping enough watchlists to border onto annoying. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do come across such a problem, we could just ask that user to revert to the older image (the one with the correct size) and upload the new, and larger, image to a new filename, thus keeping the original signatures intact and the newer images scaled down to <19px. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|18px|]] Brains12 \ talk 14:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)