Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Signatures

I'm not going to revert Stabbers removal of the signing policy without discussion. In GuildWiki we decided to make it a policy to prevent certain misuses of the signatures and I would certainly like to see a similiar approach here. --Gem (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * Here's my opinion on what should be signature standards:
 * no images
 * no external links
 * no templates
 * no ridiculous fonts and colors
 * source should fit in two-three lines at most
 * That's wikipedia's policy in a nutshell. If any of these are negotiable, then so should be the policy-nature of these standards. You are probably already aware of my opinions from the last time this came up in guildwiki. Frankly, I can't bear to look at any guildwiki talk page these days, what with every signature screaming out in technicolor. S 18:26, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * Recently I've been starting to think your way. I would like to allow small icons (not as wide as GWiki), but otherwise everything stated above seems better for this wiki. --Gem (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * I probably agree with disallowing crazy user signatures here. But I believe that the policy that you must sign your talk page contributions should be used here too. - BeXoR 19:05, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I'd like to port all the GuildWiki policies that I authored over to this wiki. It seems we're all GuildWikians at this point anyway, so that can provide a basis for us to build from. &mdash;Tanaric 19:07, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Oops. I meant to say, "all the GuildWiki policies I authored except for the administrator policy." That policy absolutely needs some discussion. &mdash;Tanaric 19:12, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * That RfA policy should not be brought over. There is no real need for new admins as the guildwiki admin team is sufficiently capable to handle a load as large as guildwiki. (I am assuming they will move here en masse.) On this topic, the powers of admins should be devolved. For instance, I object to the delete and ban templates (the first more than the second). Instead of relying on admins to be judge, jury and executioner, we should follow the wikipedia system of setting up narrow speedy deletion criteria and force all other deletions to be based on consensus in centralized discussions. I will also note that there is a noxious messiah-complex about admins at guildwiki that this wiki would do well to avoid. I will be the first to note that it is not (necessarily) the admins' fault, but there are exceptions. Lastly, there needs to be a verifiability/factuality policy. Let us learn from guildwiki and not make the mistake of allowing builds or their kin here. There is already a buildwiki and that is guildwiki. I'll have more to say once policy drafts are drawn up. S 19:32, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * I agree completely. I'll bring over all compatible policies and slap a proposed tag on them. Additionally, I'll bring over the policy proposal system I wrote. &mdash;Tanaric 19:34, 7 February 2007 (PST)
 * Agreed. A more community driven delete process is required.  It's even something I had thought about proposing on GuildWiki.  As for builds - no disagreement whatsoever.  I'm on record many times saying that wikis are not a good choice for use in testing and rating builds. --Barek 19:36, 7 February 2007 (PST)
 * Agreed. --Gem (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2007 (PST)

(added the section header) I would like to continue the discussion on the signatures policy. I'm fine with no templates, no external links, short signatures, and no ridiculous fonts and colouring. I would like to contend on disallowing images. Limiting signature icons to 19x19 does not seem very disruptive. A little icon and a difference in colour makes it easier for me to read long talk pages. And finally, I would to ask about usernames being visible in the signature. For guildwikians here, PanSola once suggested that I not use a signature that does not imply my username. Feels like something to be considered, in case we get users whose usernames are totally different from their signatures? Ab.er.rant 23:31, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * In my opinnion the sig should pretty much be the default one with only mall additions allowed, such as a small icon (19x19), link to talk page or contributions, and the random -^^.. which people like to have around their name in the sig. Modified versions of user names in sigs is a bad thing imo. --Gem (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * I drafted a version Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments. Almost everythign is like Stabber wanted, but I would allow 19x19px icons. --Gem (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * Of course, and I think you're right to have that opinion. Still, I don't think we'd benefit from that. Too many gwg users have sig pictures that are no bigger than yours and still cause associations and disruptions to talk pages. I really don't want to see any more monk or ranger icons behind a user name. They just don't belong there! ~ D.L. (msg) 15:05, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * I think that if a wiki appears to be a happier place to contribute then it becomes a happier place to contribute. This might sound a little sentimental of me ;) LordBiro 15:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)