Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive1

Discussion

I'm against all colours, images, smiley faces and dancing banannas. Unnecessary and distracting from the content. — Skuld 05:39, 8 February 2007 (PST)

A small sig icon really makes large discussion easier to follow as seen on some of the huge discussions in GuildWiki. When atleast two or three of the main participants of the discussion use a small sig icon it is a lot easier to see what was written by whom. I'm also against color (Sigm@s sig is a good example for what can happen) and other such stuff which are also not allowed by the proposal. --Gem (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Agree with Gem. Small images help follow talk pages. Oblio 10:55, 8 February 2007 (PST)

My preference is no image whatsoever. If others feel strongly to permit it, then I have no problem with a single small icon (no bigger than 19x19); but it MUST be accompanied by the text name as well. In GuildWiki we allowed an image if it clearly relates to the name; but I feel that it's better to treat everyone equally. I agree fully with not permitting color changing codes - those are nothing but disctraction. --Barek 08:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

But they make conversation way easier to follow. I find image way more distractive then color and most image ain't that clear.Aratak 08:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)

No images or colors please. Use indentation wisely to follow the flow of conversation. (Plus none of the kool kids use colors or images.) S 08:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Then we shouldn't allow anything. One single letter for example shouldn't be allowed. It's hard to see who wrote that comment.--Aratak 08:10, 8 February 2007 (PST)

The suggestion made by me forces all users to have their full user name in the sig. Even those with a sig icon. --Gem (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Whether images or colors are allowed or not, having a full user name in sig is a good requirement to prevent confusion. --Xeeron 11:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Yup. And preventing colors is a good idea as was proved by Sigm@ in GWiki. --Gem (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I don't see anything wrong with the GWiki policy, actually. Rapta 11:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)

It seems silly to even talk about this. Was sigma's that crazy? (I'll grant slightly annoying) At least it didn't blink. I liked the little icons, and I didn't mind some use of color. Whatever, I'm with rapta on this, but I'll be happy with the icon. :) Oblio 11:49, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I actualy like color but if we are to prevent color we shoudn't allow picture too. With all the skill icons proliferation in the signature on Guildwiki annoys me. It's nice to be able to spot who is talking in the conversation, it's not just about following the flow of conversation but keeping track of people you are talking too. I hope people didn't find my signature to be has annoying has Sigma's.--Aratak 12:10, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I'm all for no colors or images. Colors suck because I'm colorblind. Images suck because they're huge in the editable wikitext of the page, and because when I browse this place with Lynx, I get confused. Images also look strange, even under typical browsers, when I change the default text size for easier readability. —Tanaric 12:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)

19px height doesn't kill the link breaks too much, but I wouldn't mind a no images or colours policy. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:37, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Tanaric: I can feel your pain with the colors and it seems like we don't need to discuss them further as 90% of the discussors don't want them. Images need to be discussed further thou.

I would not disallow images just because some people use text based browsers as so many articles need to use images anyway. Besides the sig icons don't look too weird on text based browsers. The wiki code for them isn't long either unless the image name is long, which is easily regulated. Images looking a bit weird isn't a problem really, especially as so few users change the default text size. The positive side is easy recognition of the user posting which matteres to me a lot. It's hard to spot certain users from a mass of blue links and understading the whole picture (who replied to who) is hard for me atleast. --Gem (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2007 (PST)

See, for me, the images do the exact opposite. My eyes are attracted to the comments with images and I unconsciously skip over the text-only comments. —Tanaric 12:45, 8 February 2007 (PST)

That might be a problem for some users, your correct. Maby we could compromise and allow really light colors in the icons. Those would differentiate users but not draw too much attention. --Gem (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Personally I am in the minority in that I really like both colours and images. And although I didn't mention it in my summary of the discussion with ArenaNet (and I'm not saying that this should have a bearing on the decisions made here) Gaile Gray said that she loved the many user icons on talk pages and asked if I would make her an icon.

It was briefly discussed a while back, but is there no way that CSS could be used to allow those users who simply hate colours and images to turn it off? The only workable solution I can think of is wrapping sigs in a <span>, but this would add to the length of signatures in the wiki code. LordBiro 14:49, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Then have every signature automatically contain

{{sig|blah}}

. {{Sig}} would have

<div span="class:sig;">{{{1}}}</div>

or whatever it is you wanted to use. Then we could somehow implement turning sig images on or off in preferences. Blastedt(talk)GuildWiki page 14:56, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Do we need this kind of complexity? Users are free to disable images in their browser too. --Gem (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I'm in favor of allowing both colors (although not too many different colors) and small icons if it ever comes to choose, but I'm willing to disallow one or the other as a compromise, to find some middle ground with those who don't. To me, sigs are like user pages, it's kind of a personal expression. Was the little necromancer-icon that I used previously really so distracting? Hmm... --ab.er.rant (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I am fine with whatever you decide on the sigs appearance (as long as it is not flashing neon half the size of the screen), but lets please put a limit length of the wiki code. Sigs that are longer than one line of code bloat the talk pages (while editing), especially when there are many short comments. --Xeeron 15:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)

A 150 character limit would be a good one I think. --Gem (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I wonder if we could make it a requirement that, if you choose to use images in your signature, you have to wrap it in a span like this:

<span class="sig">signature goes here</span>

Ideally there would be a preference to add span.sig img { display: none; } to the user's stylesheet. LordBiro 15:36, 8 February 2007 (PST)

This has the abysmal side effect of cluttering up the wikitext in articles. I think what really needs to be asked is, "what do colors and images in sigs add to the wiki"? They don't help the project, and, at least to some people, they cause demonstrable harm (screen readers, attracting eyes to colorful passages, text-only browsers, etc.). There is absolutely no benefit to keeping them, and there is absolutely no harm in disallowing them. If it really means that much to you to slap a colorful image next to your contribution, I think perhaps you should reconsider why you're contributing in the first place. —Tanaric 17:59, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I say get rid of the images. They aren't necessary and draw attention away from ordinary user links. Plus they keep the pages clean. It's just another vanity item. - - BeXoR 18:06, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Tanaric said: "If it really means that much to you to slap a colorful image next to your contribution, I think perhaps you should reconsider why you're contributing in the first place." If that is the reason, then we should only allow contact information on user pages, nothing more. We should also disallow any talk on talk pages which isn't related to work in the wiki. Sounds ridicilous? So does disallowing sig images. Sounds more like "I want to use a text based browser although I have the choice not to and they screw talk pages for me." Your other argument is that a minority is harmed by them, but an equal minority finds them really helpfull, the rest just don't care. --Gem (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I tend to agree with Gem. I don't use much of an unusual signature myself, but I personally like to know who is typing before I read it, so I will scroll to the end of the indentation to see who it is. If I see a Gem, or an odd little smiley face, I can see it's Gem or Bexor. And if I see a purple block of text I know it's Gaile :P

I can appreciate that some people are not keen on images and colours, but I'm not one of them. LordBiro 13:47, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Actually, Gem, when I'm on my machine that doesn't have X installed, I don't have a choice -- text-based browsers are the only choice I have. That said, and text-based browsers aside, I'm done with this discussion. If people are actually willing to make the site unusable for the handicapped just because they like fucking images after their talk comments, there's nothing I can say to dissuade them from such callous, compassionless behavior. —Tanaric 15:51, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I hope you are not too worked up about this, Tanaric. Having re-read the discussion I do feel that coloured text is inappropriate on usability grounds; it's not fair if someone can't make out the page properly. As far as images go, I'm still not persuaded. As far as I'm aware, screen readers will read out the alt attribute of an image if it is inside an inline tag, i.e. <p>, won't they? LordBiro 16:16, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Sorry about the outburst. It was inappropriate. Do as you will. —Tanaric 16:23, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Biro I think that's part of the problem. You are drawn to the signatures you recognise, at risk of ignoring the comments of those who you aren't familiar with or who have ordinary looking names. I believe your name should be enough. Is it that important to scream to the world that the comment is yours? It's the actual comment and what it says that's meant to be important. - BeXoR 17:23, 10 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indent) For what it's worth, together with the user policy, I think some of you guys are trying to turn this wiki into something very impersonal for the contributors. You don't want to allow any form of self-expression, and deny contributors to get that little "homey" feeling. As for text-based browsers, should we remove images from mission and quest pages as well? since they disrupt anyone reading the walkthrough. And given the rising levels of antagonism against images in signatures, I am willing to give way and restrict plain default text for every single user. Since we're all about appearing to be no different from any other user, I'm going to take another step and push for a uniform signature template: Similar dashes, username must be the signature name, date format, and either talk pages must be linked or talk pages must not be linked. --ab.er.rant (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2007 (PST)

BeXoR: Do you really claim that you never care who wrote something? In a large discussion it matters a lot which people are discussing and which comments belongto the same user. Ab.er.rant: No need for that, I'm sure. ;P

I made minor changes to the policy page, adding a note to avoid bright colors in sig icons. --Gem (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I believe that the value lies in what a person says, not who has said it. And yes, comments have never meant more or less to me depending on who said it. I am worried about new users who contribute to a discussion, and write maybe one line, which gets overlooked because everyone sees a little gem or something. And recalling my experiences as a new wiki-er, I believe that having those things makes you look like you know what you're doing, which makes others lend weight to your opinion. I know that when I changed my signature to have a picture, people started considering me as something different. I didn't sign up for any wiki to make friends or have fun - my interest is in documenting a game and finding the best way to do that. If I make friends along the way, or have fun, it's not because we had pictures in our signature or anything else. I don't understand why this is necessary and every conclusion I come to doesn't reflect well on the people wanting it... The bottom line is, your name should be enough to identify who you are. - BeXoR 01:10, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I didn't say that I give more weight to comments by people who have sig icons. See Karlos or Stabber for example. Neither of them has ever used a sig icon but I (and everyone else) takes their comments just like mine or yours. The sig icons really don't cause some peoples comments getting more weight, it's just a means for easily separating people from eachother. --Gem (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)

My point is that you read the name first/know who said it and then the comment. You identify the user before you even read anything they have said. - BeXoR 01:21, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I always try to look at the sig first before reading the comment. A sig icon or other differentiating feature makes the process a lot faster and saves me from a headache in longer discussions. --Gem (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with Gem there. For people that like to rant and write four-paragraph responses (like me), I try to browse down and check who is speaking; it helps me weigh what they say with what I already know about that user. And, after sorting down through four paragraphs of text, an off-colored word isn't going to stick out at me; an image will, so I know who it is that much faster. Also, my image always linked to my talk page... a useful tool, since my name always linked to my userpage. If the image serves a purpose, why disallow it? -Auron 01:41, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I hope you would read the comments made earlier, specifically regarding accessibility. The images may serve a purpose, but if it is to a detrimental effect, then they shouldn't be allowed. Should we always bow to ego rather than be sensible? - BeXoR 01:57, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Read Gem's response to that. Mine is the same. Should we gimp the entire Wiki for the benefit of the "accessibility" of a few? If the images serve a purpose, but inconvenience a few people, we should disallow them? Think, now. That doesn't make sense. -Auron 02:35, 11 February 2007 (PST)

That's fairly callous towards people with disabilities. - BeXoR 02:41, 11 February 2007 (PST)

To be fair, video games themselves aren't very accessible, and this is a wiki about a video game. I don't think we should ignore accessibility completely, but it is rather silly to think that a lot of blind people are going to be reading huge chunks of a wiki about a highly visual video game. Let's talk about how much we're actually inconveniencing the token blind user (as most of us here have an incomplete point of reference, at best) before we go further to decide what should and shouldn't be done to fix that. — 130.58 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Tanaric, could you give an example of how colored text or other kinds of formating break screen readers, &c. for those of us who never use them? For example, if User:Example decided to make his sig green, what would it do to a screen reader? — 130.58 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Better yet, how does the text reader work with the GuildWars client? --Rainith 02:55, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Is it a requirement that editors play the game? - BeXoR 02:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Are there any editors who have never played any of the GuildWars series of games? Now of those people who raised their hands, how many are blind (or close enough that they use screen readers)? --Rainith 03:04, 11 February 2007 (PST)

What about people who have degenerative eye diseases and can still see, but wont for long? Are we cutting them out of the picture too? There are too many possibilities to say if you aren't able to do this, too bad. - BeXoR 03:08, 11 February 2007 (PST)

We are not Wikipedia. It makes sense to have a rule against pictures in a signature on something like Wikipedia, where anyone is likely to contribute. It does not here, where in order for this wiki to even interest them, they would need to have the video game as a point of reference. A game that requires people to be able to see graphics on a screen and interact with them. I am not trying to shut out the visually impaired (my eyes are bad enough that I'm nearly considered blind myself), but the suggestion that a bunch of blind people are going to be upset by pictures in signature is ridiculous. --Rainith 03:14, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Bexor, are you being SERIOUS? That's the most far-fetched thing I've ever heard! At first, I thought you were defending the disabled, but now you're just being ridiculous. Let's stop with the one-in-a-five-million chance what-if games and come back to reality. -Auron 03:17, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Also, if it's just an issue of having your machine barf out a little extra "Rain-ith underscore sig dot Jay Pee Gee" every time it hits the end of one of Rainith's comments, that hardly makes the wiki unusable. Which is why I'm honestly asking: do colors and images cause problems beyond that? — 130.58 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Is bringing up possibilities that ridiculous? My eyesight is degenerating, and you can't rule out accidents. I think accessibility is something that ANet would be concerned about. Accomodating all users. I am just saying it's something that should be considered. - BeXoR 03:21, 11 February 2007 (PST)

See below (both immediately below and the topic I added to the bottom of the page). — 130.58 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I fired up the ol' Lynx. Indent-heavy pages look really stupid in my 80-character terminal, but Gaile's little color trick was just fine (ditto for people with little icons in their sigs, as long as they were semi-intelligibly named). Two biggest issues were that the main page didn't have alt text for the campaign logos, and that Blastedt's signature kinda blended together into one incomprehensible word (since the name and the link to his Guildwiki page looked the same next to each other). That first issue should probably be fixed. Other than that? Meh, not that bad.

Then I fired up Links, which doesn't have colors or whatever. No problems, either (some of the layout was, mysteriously, better than in Lynx). Editing text boxes was weird because I don't know anything about Links, but any issues with that would be a MediaWiki problem rather than a formatting policy problem.

Neither of these posed a usability problem for me. I don't have a screen reader, so that's why I'm soliciting someone else's comments on what that does to pages. — 130.58 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Just a little post so you can use me as an example :D --Snograt ^{talk here} 03:24, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Lol. Is there even a name for that shade of yellow? -Auron 03:32, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Er, orange apparently. I vaguely remember "borrowing" the style from a wikipedia user - lookie [[User:Snograt|<span style="color:orange">Snograt</span>]]''' ''^{[[User talk:Snograt|<span style="color:green">talk here</span>]]} I have very little understanding of how it works, just that it does. :)-Snograt ^{talk here} 03:38, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Lynx (text browsers) renders this: "--Snograt talk here" (with "Snograt" and "talk here" as individual links). Fangs (screen reader emulator) renders this: "dash dash Link SnogratLink talk here". Because, unsuprisingly, both just strip formatting. If anything, my sig is worse than yours, since Fangs dumps out "one-hundred thirty point five eight" as my username. — 130.58 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Damn - usage of "sup" has been banned. Better edit me sig :( --Snograt talk here 04:50, 11 February 2007 (PST)

:( --Snogratwhisper 05:11, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I've actually read through this humorous and sometimes ridiculous discussion. It realy is amazing what some people will come up with to prove their point. Colours and images in signatures don't bother me. I doubt I'll be using it myself, but if there are people that think it'll help identify them or just think it's pretty - then who am I to deny them that possibility ? I can respect the fact that some users think it's annoying and doesn't add anything, but to me that's just a matter of taste. How can you discuss taste ? --Erszebet 12:04, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Coloring your comment itself, not just your signature

User:Gaile Gray has begun making all her comments appear purple. I find this incredibly disruptive -- far more so than images and colors in signatures themselves. I believe this policy, or some other policy, must including something on excessive stylization of talk comments. —Tanaric 18:02, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I definitely wouldn't want to see non-Anet staff members using it, but it does help to distinguish her comments from everyone else's. That being said, I don't necessarily think anyone should use it at all. In discussions where opinions are meant to be weighed equally having any excessive embellishment on your comment will draw attention to it. - - BeXoR 18:06, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Agreed with Tanaric. With all due respect to Gaile Gray, I really see no good reason to colour every word she says purple all over the talk pages of the wiki. "But she is Gaile" doesn't qualify as one, at least not in my book. Something tells me that nothing she'll say is going to slip by unnoticed anyways, so there's really no reason to use such disruptive ways to highlight her posts. Also, from what I see, there's plenty of ANet employees registered here as users. If Gaile gets the purple colour, should Izzy (the skill balancer) get the blue one? I strongly believe we should keep this clean and not make any exceptions of this kind on the matter. (Nothing personal, madame!) --Dirigible 18:19, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Agreed, all for one and one for all :) --ab.er.rant (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Hello. Here it is April and I'm just finding these comments. As you may have noticed, my experiment in coloured text lasted about, oh, 2 hours. I came to recognize quickly how inappropriate it was and I halted the use on my own volition. However, I'm distressed that I caused some of you distress, and distressed that you didn't relay your distress to me. Could it be you didn't want to cause me distress? :) Or could it be you figured that everyone on the wiki read every page of the wiki? I'd caution that we ought not to engage in lengthy discussions about user practices without having the courtesy of letting any individual know that his or her choices are the subject of such discussion, and without inviting / encouraging him or her to participate in the matter personally.

Perhaps this will not be seen, since it comes so late. And perhaps it will be misread as high dudgeon about issues with that long ago "what would happen if I..." experiment. High dudgeon it is not. Both advice and request -- Speak with the User -- it decidedly is. --Gaile 03:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

You are right, it was about user practices, but not about a user's practices. I'm sure there's no need to tell you this, but here it is anyways: don't take anything personally on the wiki, it almost never is. Even if your name is up there in the first message, even if you're being used as an example, it's still not about you, nor about coloured text in your comments! It's about coloured text in comments in general. It's not about you! :)

Which is also why Tanaric brought this here instead of your userpage. You having that colour in your comments wasn't against any policies, there weren't any rules on that matter, the question simply hadn't come up yet. This discussion wasn't "look what Gaile is doing, how do we stop her?!" It's more of a "How do we as a wiki feel about this?" This is something that happens often, believe it or not. "Hey guys, I noticed that Rezyk is separating locations from NPCs in categories, do we want to do it that way or not?" or "I noticed Dirigible is using Ascalon instead of Ruins of Ascalon, is that really how we're doing this?" These are actual and very recent examples, in which just like in your case, the user who "provoked" that question isn't contacted directly, but the community's opinion is asked instead (other examples that pop to mind now at 5a.m. are the issue about {{TOCright}} and someone "correcting" Vlad's British English spellings into American ones). It's not about underhandedly discussing someone else's actions, it's about figuring out what the general consensus on the matter is (if there even is one) before even thinking of stopping, questioning or in any form discouraging someone else from doing whatever they are doing on the wiki. Basically, it's about putting the onus of doubt on your own thoughts on the matter first, before trying to stop someone's else's actions.

I do realise this way of doing things might sound somewhat shady, ("trying to gather the crowd against me without me even knowing about it"), but it's really not that. It all boils down to the fact that in the end, in a wiki community the opinion that really decides what's going to happen is that of Mr.Consensus (as Rezyk calls it, I personally would have gone with the opposite gender). If Mr.Consensus had told Tanaric and me above to shut up, because it was perfectly fine for you to colour those comments, that would have been the end of that story. If there had been either a real debate on the matter, or if Mr.Consensus had hinted towards an agreement (as it did) that colouring the comment was inappropriate, you can be sure you would have been contacted so you could chip in with your thoughts in the discussion as well, no doubt about it.

So why were you never made aware of this, and asked to come chip in about it? Maybe because, as you noted, you stopped using that coloured text before the discussion you see above even fully took place. :) There was simply no need to bug you about it, since both Mr.Consensus (through discussion) and Ms.Gaile Gray (through personal observation) had reached the same conclusion. It was probably the best way things could have turned out.

I'm sorry if this message got sort of long; just trying my best to explain this situation and am not even really feeling confident that I did so clearly. I'd hate for anyone to feel upset over what I think is a misunderstanding (which is also why most of my messages inevitably get so long). Hope all this makes sense. Cheers. --Dirigible 06:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of another disturbing habit which is pretty new in the GuildWiki. Some users started to use colored tables on their talk page in which all comments should have been placed. Although I think that users are allowed to modify their talk page, I don't think that that should be allowed. The user page policy might be more suitable to prevent that one though. --Gem (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2007 (PST)

That feels more appropriate in some sort of conduct policy or guidelines, something similar to YAV and NPA. --ab.er.rant (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2007 (PST)

User page guidelines are separate from this page, and should be discussed by the burgeoning user page policy. —Tanaric 15:52, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I went and found a screen reader emulator...

Using Fangs, a Firefox extension that fakes the JAWS screen reader, I went over to a page full of formatted stuff: User talk: Gaile Gray. It's definitely a pain in the ass to read, but that's not because of the colors.

Here's a snapshot of the "I've noticed you've taken to using purple" topic as a user with a screen reader would more-or-less experience it:

left bracket Link edit right bracket I've noticed you've taken to using purple... So I made a Link template for you so you don't have to type it out each time, have fun!! colon D LinkGraphicImage colon BlastedT.jpgLink BlastedtLink GuildWiki page thirteen colon forty-two nine February two thousand seven left paren PST right paren Definition list of zero itemsequals I made a few mistakes, but promptly fixed ;P LinkGraphicImage colon BlastedT.jpgLink BlastedtLink GuildWiki page thirteen colon forty-six nine February two thousand seven left paren PST right paren Definition list of zero itemsequals Would someone also like to fix the colors on this talk page? I think she just forgot a few end tags somewhere or made a typo or two, but I wont bother to look for the mistakes. dash dash Link Gem left paren Link talk right paren thirteen colon fifty-five nine February two thousand seven left paren PST right paren Definition list of zero itemsequals Just missed one Tag colon P All better now LinkGraphicImage colon Kaya dash Icon dash Small.png fourteen colon five nine February two thousand seven left paren PST right paren List endList endList end

Bleh, huh? Note something, though: all of the fancy signatures and stuff add only a few words to the list. Far more obtrusive are parens, all the list bullplop MediaWiki uses to format the page, and DATES. Overall, I don't see the few extra little words as being particularly obtrusive when compared to all the other stuff that's being generated. (For the curious, you should also know that screen readers read fast... I've worked with systems set up to read OS output, and the synthesized voice would rattle of words faster than an auctioneer whenever any kind of message popped up.) — 130.58 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2007 (PST)

So that's not a good reason not to accept images. --Gem (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Correct. Unless it has a really really long filename or something, an image isn't any more of a problem than stuff like the date or some usernames (e.g. mine, which is annoying if pronounced in long form by the reader). — 130.58 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I've just pointed lynx at Meta's article on images, especially the section on "embedding" images, and if the image has an alt tag specified it appears as though it were text.

Therefore I recommend that we make it mandatory that all signature images should have the alt tag set to the user's name. LordBiro 17:07, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Just making your sig icon something intelligibly named after you also serves that purpose. Which is already being discussed here. Giving non-informative images an alt tag of " " is also not a bad idea. (If your sig is an icon+name.) — 130.58 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with the name for the most part, but looking at Gem's talk page on GuildWiki in lynx, Gem's sig looks like this:

-- Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)

When with a proper alt tag it would look like this:

-- Gem (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I agree with the blank alt tag for images + sig. LordBiro 17:17, 11 February 2007 (PST)

We're totally on the same page, then. I think the overall point is that, whatever your sig is, it should be recognizable and minimally-cluttered in any form. — 130.58 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2007 (PST)

New header for discussion

Let's continue the discussion here. Everything else in the policy seems to be okay for everyone except for the signature icons. The reasons to oppose them have been limited to drawing attention from posts to users. Their harm for people with screen readers is minimal opposed to other wiki formatting and they don't look too bad in text based browsers when considered that most wiki articles also include images. Their attention drawal has also been limited by asking for light non-disturbing colors. The users opposing them seem to be BeXoR and Tanaric, the users supporting them are numerous. --Gem (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I oppose images in signatures for the reasons above. I'm not fully against images, but I don't think any of these should appear in signatures: Skill icons, profession icons, or any guild-wars related icon, icons with great color ranges (i.e. more than three distinguishable colors) and any other icon which is not unique to your wiki-account. Anything below that would be within my personal "OK"-range, and I think that'd be a sound compromise. ~ D.L. 12:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Fair enough. I stand by my original P.O.V. (bottom of 1st discussion section) - colours and icons allowed. The only restrictions I'm ok with are: no bright (as in 'unreadable') colors and disruptive mark-up. In other words, the policy as proposed now but with signature coloring (phew :p ). --Erszebet 13:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Signature color tags have allready been disallowed after discussion, as most users seem to be against them, but sig icons are still under discussion. I would accept 19x19 sigs with no bright colors allowed. --Gem (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Dirigible 14:31, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Most users against color? Well that didn't stand out. Well my points of view is image is more annoying and no light color isn't something you can define. So I'm against icons mostly because people use skill icons and I hate that.Aratak 16:36, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Maybe I'm skimming too much, but I didn't actually observe a strong antipathy to colored text in signatures above. — 130.58 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Yea, most seem to be opposed to images. The problem with colours only comes up if they use multiple colours. Tanaric seems to have given up trying to convince people to give up images though... this is kinda depressing. We're arguing about such trivial things. Imagine putting up the guidelines on S&F and then arguing about each minor detail... let's decide if we should just go with the majority or to accomodate and accept the preference of the minority. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I'm against colours and images because they are frivolities and are uncessary. The arguments to leave them do not outweigh the arguments to take them out. I think it's pandering to our egos to demand these things. But I can recognize a battle lost. How do you define a list of acceptable colours? Limit it to the 216 web safe colours? Really bright colours or multiple colours or background colours are all problematic, but someone could just as easily say your light blue colour makes my eyes hurt! I noticed that people didn't like someone's orange signature. I thought the colour was okay. And personally any light green colour is irritating. Dark colours only? What is dark? And I still don't think images are okay, but if they are allowed then 19 x 19 and only one image. - BeXoR 20:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I implied being against colors in signatures when talking above, too. As for colors of signatures, I propose allowing all prints ranging from #000000-#666666 and all other colors with differences of no more than #33 betweem any two part-colors (ie. #669999, #003300, #225555). Those colors are all rather dark and don't really disturb. For images, again, I suggest we limit the colors to three "distinguishable" types. (Or make it black, white and a third color to make that rule more precise.) ~ D.L. 21:51, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Of course, bold print should be prohibited, if we decide on allowing colored signatures. ~ D.L. 21:52, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Bold print yes, but be aware that if the user's signature links to their talk page, any comments made on their talk page will have the signature bolded. If you are confident in that range of colours, someone can make up a table (I can if you want) of acceptable colours. - BeXoR 22:07, 11 February 2007 (PST)

"Of course"? Why "of course"? — 130.58 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Well, that's because I think that color and bold combined are too emphasizing. ~ D.L. 23:38, 11 February 2007 (PST)

It seemed fair to me. - BeXoR 23:55, 11 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indent) I'm sure you realize how many combinations there are in the range you proposed. I'm thinking whether you actually recognise all of them... If you said #003300 is accceptable, would you be able to tell if I used #003611 instead? I think this whole range of color thingy is a needless clarification. Either you allow colors or you don't. Either you allow one single color only or you allow 2 colors only. That's it. I, for one, don't want to bother dealing with the inevitable "Huh?" response when you tell other users, "Hey, that orange color in your signature is illegal, change it a hexcode that's has at most a #33 difference between any two part-colors." --ab.er.rant (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Yeh. Colors for most people were fine (Hyperion used gold and then light grey, Rapta's used grey for months now; nobody complained about those colors). The only problem was people with... unnecessary coloring in their signature. Using the rainbow for your sig makes little sense, but if you prefer Green over the standard blue link, I don't see why we should disallow that. Maybe a "pick one color" rule? -Auron 02:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

People had problems with users that had a red name. Would red be allowed? - BeXoR 02:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I don't (generally) see a problem with allowing red, however, red usernames usually link to empty (never edited) userpages. I heard once that the color red on a screen induced some symptoms of seizure, is that what you were talking about? -Auron 03:09, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Personally, I don't have a problem with red colors. If a user wants to use red and have everyone think that he doesn't have a user page, that's fine with me. If it's red, I don't bother clicking. If I want to go to the talk page, whether it's red or not, I can still click it and get to the talk page. --ab.er.rant (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2007 (PST)

(edit conflict) No I meant in regards to "acceptable" colours. Someone on gwiki had a user signature that had a red name and they were told to change it because it was unacceptable or ugly or something. I haven't heard that about red on a screen. I would think though that you'd filter the colour out in your monitor settings if you were at risk of something like that. I don't think red is as bad and something like neon green but other people obviously didnt want it. - BeXoR 03:16, 12 February 2007 (PST)

So now we are going to accept colors? Then there are no real arguments against images as the sig colors were a lot more disturbing in GWiki than sig icons. --Gem (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2007 (PST)

You mean sig colors that were ridiculous/unnecessary? I think we're failing to draw the line between "color" in the sig (i.e., green instead of blue) and an "excessively colored" sig (i.e., six or so colors, a different one for each letter in your name). Yeah, the ridiculous sigs were definitely disturbing, but by far, most people's colored sigs posed no problem. Edit: maybe we should have a no-rainbow "policy?" -Auron 03:26, 12 February 2007 (PST)

One color per link. If you have a link to your user page, and a link to your talk page, you can use two colors. I don't know if there was a discussion about putting other links in your sig (contribs or whatever), but if they are allowed then you can use one additional color for each link. Each link must be only one color, so just because you can use two colors, that doesn't mean you can alternate colors for each letter. That's my suggestion anyway. --Rainith 03:35, 12 February 2007 (PST)

That might be prone to abuse... I could sneak in a link to each of my character subpages using single letters and then color them all in different colors... a really extreme example, but my thought was one more colour in addition to black. So your sig can have black and one other color. That way you can't have users purposely picking garish mismatches of colors. --ab.er.rant (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2007 (PST)

That would only be prone to abuse if more links were allowed. The current proposed policy reads, "Do not include links to anything else than your user page, user talk page or user contributions page." so at most you would be able to use 3 colors for the 3 links. So you could if you wanted to link your sig as Ab.er.rant. --Rainith 03:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Rainith.... I think I actually like it... lol --ab.er.rant (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2007 (PST)

/cry. Lol. It's not too bad :P Anyhoo, how do we put it into words? "You may not have more colors than links in your sig?" -Auron 03:49, 12 February 2007 (PST)

"Signatures must include one link and may include up to three: A link to the user's page or the user's talk page is required and a link to the user's contributions page is optional. Each link must be only one color, but each link may be a different color from the others." How does that sound? --Rainith 03:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Sounds okay to mee, but I would also want a 'no bright and disturbing colors' added in. I'll modify the policy suggestion according to that. How about the icons then? --Gem (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2007 (PST)

My only issue w/the 'bright and disturbing colors' part is that it would be subjective. If I have just gone to a funeral, I could say that I found the color black used in a signature disturbing, that might be true, but the vast majority of people probably wouldn't think that way. I think if colors are allowed, it should be clear cut, all or nothing.

As for icons, I'm fine with them at the 19x19 pixel limit (I think that was the limit people were discussing, if not, then at whatever limit people had agreed upon before). --Rainith 04:08, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Bright and disturbing is subjective, but it should be clear that when multiple users complain about your sig colors they are disturbing. If only one is, there is nothing to worry about. --Gem (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2007 (PST)

[ec] How brigth are bright colors? What's too bright? That discussion is really going nowhere. Again, we're at a point where any agreement can hardly be called that way. I'm against that. If we don't want a quantifiable regulation, we might as well have no regulation at all. ~ D.L. 04:16, 12 February 2007 (PST)

(edit conflict) How many out of the thousands of users is enough to form a proper complaint? Keep in mind that someone could complain about UserX's signature and I could back it up because I'm a friend with the person complaining. It should require more that "more than one person complaining". - BeXoR 04:23, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Some stuff we can leave up to common sense when the situation arises. By the way, there is a technical objective definition of "brightness" but I would hate to see that used here. --Xeeron 04:30, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Looks good to me. Not that I'm going to color my sig :p -Auron 04:38, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I wouldn't mind to allow both colors and images for sigs. A signature with color and icon makes it easier to recognize the author at a glance. I support a restriction on sig height to avoid breaking of line spacing (so image height should be limited to 19 px, and no big/sup/sub be allowed). I wouldn't mind sig icons wider than 19 though; anything up to around 100 is okay for me. Anything blinking or animated is a no-no. I also support limiting the overall length of the sig, both the markup test and the text as it appears on the talk page. As for colors (both text and icon), as I said, I like them. Yes, some colors and color combinations are annoying, but it is near impossible to define which ones, so we shouldn't bother trying to define a strict rule, but rather a request to apply some common sense. --Tetris L 08:09, 12 February 2007 (PST)

The current policy suggestion is just what you want then, with the small exception of the sig width limit of 19 pixels, which I would like to keep. --Gem (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2007 (PST)

The whole no-color-no-images fraction is gradually losing ground... 0_o ~ D.L.

"Faction" :p Yea, and losing badly it seems, lol. I'm all for uniformity but people are more inclined towards some form of decoration, so no complaints there :) --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2007 (PST)

So that's sorted then? :D --Snograt whisper 12:33, 14 February 2007 (PST)

"No skill icons" discussion

Since I failed grasping the general motion regarding this topic, I'd like to discuss the use of skill icons, profession icons and other Guild Wars icons like the symbols for attack, hex, enchantment, weapon spell, etc. here.
To clarify my position on this: I'm against the use of any of them in any form whatsoever in user signatures. They just don't belong there. By using the ranger icon or using the monk icon you imply being "the monk" or "the ranger", which gives your voice more weight than it shouldn't. In addition, since we required user icons to be unique, it prevents all other users to use that same icon, although technicially, they would have the same right to do so. ~ D.L. 04:44, 12 February 2007 (PST)

By using the ranger icon or using the monk icon you imply being "the monk" or "the ranger", which gives your voice more weight...

I'm sorry, but IMO that is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard today. --Rainith 04:47, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Agree with Rainith. No reason to diallow them. --Gem (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2007 (PST)

The only reason to be wary of ingame icons is the possibility of two people using the same icon, but that is up to them really, can't expect to be the only one having that idea. --Xeeron 05:24, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I believe it was stated on GuildWiki that if you used a skill icon or profession icon, you had to upload a seperate copy, so that you could redirect it to your user page. --Rainith 05:32, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with disallowing them, but for different reasons. I don't think it makes your comments carry more weight, but the reason that I agree with signature icons is that it is a form of personal expression, and it creates an association between an image and a user.

With profession icons this is neither personal expression nor does it create an association between an image and a user. I can remember that Gem has a gem icon, BeXoR has a smiley face that looks like this D: , even that hyperion has a weird gun thing and Kaya has some odd little hand gesture that is kind of cool, but I cannot remember who used the profession icons, even though I can remember them being used regularly. LordBiro 05:45, 12 February 2007 (PST)

That's a good point. I'm not editing the policy suggestion before more input, but I would be okay with disallowing the use of skill icons. (Not necessarily any other icons) --Gem (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I agree, that is a very good point Biro. I never took notice of anyone who used skills in their sigs, as it was very impersonal and generic. I vividly remember and recognise the more original ones like Gem's, Kaya's, etc. - BeXoR 06:13, 12 February 2007 (PST)

100% with biro on this.--Aratak 06:25, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I've first seen Skuld use the monk icon and the ranger icon multiple times. It's been a while though. I'll try and sneak the no-skill icon bit into the policy. ~ D.L. 07:40, 12 February 2007 (PST)

(Monk icon) That was annoying, I got copied to the point that new users were asking do they have to indicat their profession in their signings.. — Skuld 07:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I deleted the part about copying present images. That should be enough to enforce uniqueness. I hope you're ok with that. ~ D.L. 07:43, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Haha, I wanted to make a fun remark whether it is part of your personal expression to use a unremarkable sig that is not a commonly recognised personal expression, but that reminded me of this master piece of british filmmaking:

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, you don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for yourselves! You're ALL individuals!

The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!

Brian: You're all different!

The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we ARE all different!

Man in Crowd: I'm not...

The Crowd: Shhh!

--Xeeron 07:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

First of all... lol @ Xeeron. You threw off my train of thought. :p Anyway, I wasn't gonna add any comments here cause i'm already using a icon, and by doing so am a baaaaad example. But, seriously have to say that joining ya'll a little late in the game it did help me to recognize and remember those of you I talked to cause i'm way blah with names so associating a image with them is very helpful. On another note it does show charcter, and i'm a fan of that too. I dont think it hurts anything having an icon as a sig unless the icon is used by more than 1 person or it's a profession icon like has already been suggested. 16:11, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Darn it! So everyone didn't remember I used a necro icon?! I thought I was the only one using it... oh well. Anyway, I'm fine with disallowing any use of icons that represent effects/skills/professions (guess I have to start learning how to make icons? Hmm...) Oh, what about things like guild emblems and such? --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I kiiind of remembered you used it. But I only remember you so well because I kept going to you for help again and again. We didn't really have much contact other than that. "Aberrant I need help with ULC!!!" You're my expert. :P - BeXoR 21:24, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Let's doooo it lolz

Is this a policy or not? Nobody's disagreeing, and the issues raised have been addressed. What now? -Auron 13:54, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Give it at least a day in its current state, to make sure everyone who is interested has a chance to see it. --Rainith 13:59, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I'm all for making it policy, ASAP. We only have 1 policy officially accepted at the moment? We should try and get a few more up there, and this is one that affects lots of people. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:01, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Btw, the sup tag in your sig isn't allowed. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 14:02, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Yeah, please fix it. :) And jsut like with the user page policy, lets wait one day and make it a policy then if no major changes have been requested. --Gem (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Oh snap i just realized the image policy is 19X19 max now :O Do you think I could request that since my name is fashionably squished into my icon, and therefore not using any extra space, that it could maybe kinda be an exception? :\ 16:15, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Your signature is very nice, but I see a problem in it being abused if we set the exception to the policy. I would hope that the policy gets accepted tomorrow and we could discuss a small change after that. Sounds good? --Gem (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Ya, that sounds great. I wouldnt want to cause anyone abuse the policy, so i'll do as needed. 16:19, 12 February 2007 (PST)

In the current proposal, does the character length relate to with or without the date? I'm guessing without, but it doesn't specify. --Barek 16:21, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Without the date ofcourse. :) --Gem (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I know I'm kinda late in commenting here, but I thought I'd add my thoughts anyway. When I first saw the policy a couple days ago, I was terrified - no color, no icons, at all??? WTF, mate? Luckily, that got voted down, and some very reasonable guidelines were agreed upon. I support the policy in its current form. —Dr Ishmael 16:33, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I actually still disagree with the wording on the color text for two reasons. First, it's vague in that it states "Using bright and disturbing colors is not allowed" - what is disturbing to one user may not be to another. Second, red-green color blindness is the most common form of color blindness, the use of red or green text makes those texts harder for those affected to recognise. --Barek 16:40, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I would not like to add any clear restrictions as they are hard to make and will probably only cause harm, but having the current statement in the policy still gives us the possibility to take action when someone is really disturbing others in some way. --Gem (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2007 (PST)

For reference, Wikipedia's guideline on signatures states "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color. If you must use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness." Theirs is still vague, but I do like their inclusion of consideration for color blindness. --Barek 17:05, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Added. --Gem (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I'm quite strongly against the restriction of the sup tag, and its counterpart the sub tag. There is no real reason for it to be disallowed - the amount it changes the line space by in minute, and I think its a nice effect that works well with signatures.

Over at Wikipedia for example, it is allowed and widely used to nice effects - it actually makes it easier to distinguish between links rather than harder, and doesn't actually disrupt the lines at all (unless you count under a pixel as disruptive). I think this should be changed. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (PST)

_{I guess my} ^PIXELS are _BIGGER than yours, then. It just begs to be abused :p --Erszebet 11:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Wow! There's a big space between my text and the text above. Hey wait... that's because I put a line break in. =P

If I were to ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble for long enough to see the effect over several lines, it becomes apparent that it hardly changes the line spacing at all. Why shouldn't be allowed? Ale_Jrb ^(talk) 11:57, 13 February 2007 (PST)

There is a major worry amongst users that the policies are going to be way too lenient and I agree with them partially. The sup, sub and bg tags distrupt reading long discussions and derve no real purpose. You can use the small tag to make you talk page link or what ever look different than rest of the sig. --Gem (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2007 (PST)

And lets think it this way: It disturbs a some users, but how does it improve or enjoy others? In no way. --Gem (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2007 (PST)

"hardly changes the line spacing at all" is very different from "doesn't change the line spacing". I actually found your "ramble" hard to concentrate on, because the lines are all different heights. I was not opposed to sup, sub etc. before, but now I am, so I feel your demonstration has backfired Ale_jrb :/ LordBiro 12:02, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I've edited my example to represent a signature with it in, after all - that's what we're discussing. Using it in a signature is very difficult from dotting it all over the place, which may make text hard to read. Which is why we don't write like that. I don't, however, see the problem with having once at the end of a comment, especially seeing as there should really be a line break afterwards anyway. It's possible I'm seeing something very different from you - I can barely notice the difference in line spacing. Maybe someone should take a screenshot of this effect in action and point out to me where the problem is.

Also, I am all for policies being strict - I am a devoted follower of policy, and believe it is more important than almost anything else, even on a wiki, but only when it has a point. I don't believe that this part does. (And my plan may have backfired, in which case I am upset, as when glancing over it I don't even notice it...). Obviously, if the overwhelming consensus is against allowing them, it can stay that way, but I haven't met anyone who is disrupted by its use in a signature - only people who know others who are disrupted. As I said, it hasn't been a problem anywhere else, where they probably have longer discussions than us anyway =P. Ale_Jrb (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2007 (PST)

They might have longer discussions, but we have more potatoes! Or something.

I accept that now that the sup tag is only in your sig it looks a lot better. For the record the original ramble can be found in the history. LordBiro 12:14, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I'm distracted by them and so is Tetris and a few others which you can find on the discussions on this page and the GWiki. Even if nothing else but the sig has a sup tag in it, it creates empty space between your comments last line and the second last line, dividing your comment. --Gem (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Reset indent

But that's because you're special! ... maybe =/. Either way, I think it's a little silly =D, but I'm willing to stand down if you really think it would be preferred that way by the majority of users. Of course, if there's even the slightest doubt that more users will prefer it (i.e. want to use it) with the <sup> tags allowed, one can't be selfish, and the policy should be changed to reflect what would be consensus. Ale_Jrb (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Yes of course. If later on, there's alot of clamoring for the policy to be relaxed, then a policy change proposal can be made. For now, let's just start agreeing on the initial version of the policy. --ab.er.rant 18:53, 13 February 2007 (PST)

+1. It's always better to start off with strict (although not draconian) policies and allow the possibility of relaxing the restrictions in the future, than to start off lax and the try to force people into compliance when the policy becomes stricter. —Dr Ishmael 19:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I disagree with you Dr. Ishmael. I think it always better to have lax policy or no policy and produce it when the need arises. LordBiro 10:02, 14 February 2007 (PST)

ARE WE ALLOWED GWIKI LINKS

PLZ TELL IF I CAN HAVE LINKS TO MY USERPAGE PL0X! BlastedtGuildWiki page 16:41, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Per the section on links, I would say no. You could have the link to your GuildWiki page on your user page, but not in your sig here. --Barek 16:43, 12 February 2007 (PST)

:( BlastedtGuildWiki page 16:47, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Yah. The policy clearly states "Do not include links to anything else than your user page, user talk page or user contributions page.". If someone is really that interested, they may go to your user page and find the link there. --Gem (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I was wondering since that is my userpage but not on here BlastedtGuildWiki page 17:33, 12 February 2007 (PST)

That is your GuildWiki user page, not your Guild Wars Wiki user page. Try not to lump both wikis together as they're obviously separate entities. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2007 (PST)

It would be misleading. It would be no different than allowing it to link to someone's personal off-site blog. Also, it can be potentially confusing to newer users not familiar with both wikis.

As Aberrant said - the two wikis are distinct entities, and sigs should not attempt to blur the line between them. --Barek 17:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I think this is a policy now

Two days, no complaining and no meaningfull edits to the policy suggestion, so I think this is a policy. If no one disagrees within a small period of time I'll change the proposal tag to a policy tag and move it in the policy article to the current policies. --Gem (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree. Looks like we talked this through. ~ D.L. 10:58, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Done. --Gem (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I'm disappointed I missed this, but I think it's important that all signature images use alt tags. People with images disabled, or people viewing through a screen reader, should know that the icon means "Gem", or if it's after "BeXoR" then it should have an empty alt tag. LordBiro 16:42, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree. Anyone opposed to ammending the policy with that? — 130.58 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I support. —Tanaric 17:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I thought we already went through the screen reader stuff (and tested it even) further up the page. --Rainith 19:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)

We did, but Biro's suggestion about alt text never made it into the final policy. Probably just got overlooked (I blame all the flashy signatures >.> ). That's why I'm asking if anybody doesn't actually want it to be included now. — 130.58 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Ah, sorry I knew we discussed it, and I thought everyone agreed on it. Put me down as Pro alt tagging of images. --Rainith 21:12, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Support it as well, Alt tags are always great to have. --Dirigible 21:18, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I support it, but what exactly does this mean: "People with images disabled, or people viewing through a screen reader, should know that the icon means "Gem", or if it's after "BeXoR" then it should have an empty alt tag." Why should I have an alt text 'Gem' and BeXoR an empty alt? Both users need to clearly have the user name visible in the sig according to this policy, not like GWiki where I don't need to have my name visible due to my sig icon. I think alt tags should be the user name of the user for all users. --Gem (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Oh, how do I add alt messages to images with the wiki code? -- (gem / talk) 21:37, 14 February 2007 (PST)

It's a third field in an image tag. So [[Image:Resurrection Signet.jpg|19px|Super-awesome alt text here!]] makes . — 130.58 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Stupid me. That was the first thing I tested, but I didn't realise that Opera doesn't show alt messages. Duh. -- (gem / talk) 23:17, 14 February 2007 (PST)

The reason for that suggestion about you and BeXoR, Gem, is because if your sig looks like this "[[Image:Gem.png|Gem]] (gem/talk)" then users of screen readers or text browsers will see this "Gem (gem/talk)". LordBiro 02:06, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I think he was more questioning why I was included in the example, because I don't have an image. How can I have an empty alt tag when there isnt anything that has an alt tag at all? - BeXoR 02:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I don't think he was, BeXoR, "Why should I have an alt text 'Gem' and BeXoR an empty alt? Both users need to clearly have the user name visible in the sig according to this policy".

I was using your smiley face as an example really. To use more generic terms, if user A has a signature like this:

[[Image:User_A_sig.png|User A]] ([[User:User A|]])

Them this would look like this:

User A (User A)

In this instance, since the name is already in the siganture, it would make more sense to the reader if the alt tag of the image was blank. LordBiro 02:19, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Now it makes sense. ;) - BeXoR 05:48, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Small?

Are small tags allowed? It says no big tags and the example has small in it, doh — Skuld 07:53, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Small doesn't affect line spacing, so I see no reason not to allow it. -- TETRIS L 07:56, 15 February 2007 (PST)

LOL at everyone using small as soon as I post here. :P - BeXoR 21:49, 15 February 2007 (PST)

A technical question

The policy says I'm allowed to colorize my signature, but if I try to add the <font color= ...> tag to the "Nickname" field in my preferences, I get an error message about HTML code not being allowed. I see some people here already have their sig colorized, so obviously there is a way. Fill me in, please. -- TETRIS L 08:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

<font color="Color">Name</font> Gares 08:14, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Nope, that doesn't quite work, at least for me (browser might have something to do with it, I'm using Firefox 2.0).

• <font color="red"> [[User:Gares Redstorm|Gares]]</font> - Still displays as blue, Gares
• <font style="color:red"> [[User:Gares Redstorm|Gares]]</font> - Also still displays as blue, Gares

Here's what works for me:

• [[User:Gares Redstorm|<font color="red">Gares</font>]] - Displays as red, Gares —Dr Ishmael 08:27, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Dr Ishmael: That code works fine if I use it in an article, but if I try to enter it into the "Nickname" field in my preferences and tick the "Raw signatures" checkbox I get the error message. That's why I was asking. -- TETRIS L 08:35, 15 February 2007 (PST)

The font tag shouldn't really be used. I doubt that this is the cause of the problem, but you should really use a span and alter the style attribute. LordBiro 09:19, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Try something like this: [[User:Gares Redstorm|<span style="color: black">Gares</span>]]. And Biro is right. Span is more flexible in terms of usage. Gares 10:17, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Right, span, duh. And both span and small seem to work fine in Nickname, as evidenced by my sig here--> —DR Ishmael 14:02, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Got it, thanks! -- TETRIS L 00:27, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Tetris, your problem was missing double quotes? I had that error too until I added in the quotes. -- ab.er.rant -- 00:49, 16 February 2007 (PST)

New redirect?

Signatures? BLASTEDT 14:51, 15 February 2007 (PST)

BG allowed? + font ?

On my talk page, I noted several ideas for sigs, several of which included background colors as well as font colors. Is this allowed? Please say yes, I love the chartereuse but it isn't showing off enough in a font color. BLASTEDT 15:35, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Your examples on your talk page may provide fodder for proposed changes to the policy as currently written. The policy doesn't explicitly ban changes to background color, and while such changes may fit under under other limitations listed, I think a change should be proposed to explicitly disallow background color changes - they're worse than a large icon as far as I'm concerned. I also believe the color restrictions should be clarified that the color choices should still keep the name easilly visible (light colors are hard to read - a prime example being chartereuse). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:53, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Heh, yeah, I think the sig should be easily readable so light colors would be out. I also don't think background colors are appropriate as they draw undo attention to the sig and generally disrupt the visual flow of the page. That being my opinion of course. Lojiin 15:57, 15 February 2007 (PST)

While font colors may be slightly distracting, background colors would be excessively distracting, I think. Not to mention that people could easily come up with some annoyingly garish combinations, like this. —Dr Ishmael 17:34, 15 February 2007 (PST)

No background colors, please. Too garish. — 130.58 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Vote no background here too. - BeXoR 21:51, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I'm against it, too. -- TETRIS L 01:08, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Everyone here seems to be against the background colors so I'm editing the policy to disallow them. -- (gem / talk) 03:34, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Awwww BLASTEDT 14:16, 18 February 2007 (PST)

Exception

As per request, I've waited for this policy to be accepted before bring this to the table. Those of you who've seen me around know I use this: image as my signature, which accoding to policy is not allowed. So I request an exception of the following be added to this line:

• The image file must be unique to the user signature. The image file should not be larger than 19 pixels wide and 19 pixels tall.
  • In the case that the "required" user name is or is part of your image the the allowable image size may be 50 pixles wide and 19 pixles tall as long as policy of "Appearance and Color" is still met.

I feel my sig meets every other rule in the policy, and shows an exceptional example of what a sig should be. ~ kaya 15:58, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I think this could be allowed, but the image would be the only thing in the signature. 50 pixels wide seems a little short, though - your image is 48px, and your 4-letter name barely fits. My text+small-image sig is just over 100px wide. Perhaps 100px for image-only, then?

• The users signature may include one small icon.
• The image file must be unique to the user signature.
• If other text is included in the signature, the icon is restricted to 19 pixels wide and 19 pixels tall. Otherwise, if the icon is the only thing in the signature, it may be (100|50) pixels wide, but still only 19 pixels tall.

I can't think of any other objections to this, but I'm sure someone else will. —Dr Ishmael 17:49, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not in favor of this. If you allow 50x19 or 100x19, then you have to come up with rules saying they can't have any borders, they can't use background colors, and any foreground color and text used must be in compliance with the rest of the rules (real sorry kaya), which means the no garish colours and the text must be level with the rest of the text. Unless you guys are fine with me creating an image file just to make my sig look like it has <sup>. (and yes, my sig is still a work-in-progress :P) -- ab.er.rant -- 21:53, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I like kaya's sig, but I know it opens a lot of potiental abuse. - BeXoR 22:06, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I'm against any exceptions. It basically givs a back-door around other rules meant to keep the sig text in alignment (sup?). For another, where does it end? If we enlarge it here, and someone else says they just need 75, then someone else says just 100, it keeps getting bumped up. Leave it at 19x19. It's entirely reasonable to allow for personalisation without becoming atoo bulky of a distraction. And, keep in mind that a large percentage of the population still uses IE6. In that browser, kaya's image displays with a gray background (I use IE6 at work, it wasn't until I got home that I realised the background wasn't intentional). As discussed in the section above - no to backgrounds - they're horidly distracting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I love the sig, Kaya, but I don't think this modification would be constructive. — 130.58 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I think we should keep the name requirement as well as the current policy. We've rejected overly specific color restrictions in favor of easier understanding. If we wanted to restrict images in size, color, backgrounds and the likes, we'd be again far away from simple. ~ D.L. 05:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)

That's cool, thanks for all the imput. I didn't think there was much hope anyway. :\ I just think its terrible we have to kill creativeness just to keep our distance from potential abuse. ~ kaya 08:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Creativity is killed because some people are finicky about image width. Actual abuse can fit into any image width. -- Dashface 06:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Creativity is far from killed. There are plenty of interesting user icons out there and I actually think Kaya's current sig is lovely. - BeXoR 01:12, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I've always thought that true creativity is to be able to excel regardless of constraints. -- ab.er.rant 04:56, 27 February 2007 (EST)

One pixel by one pixel? -- Dashface 18:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

If I can come up with a better color than you, then yes. -- ab.er.rant 20:35, 5 March 2007 (EST)

The 19x19 thing is a bit sad... -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 21:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to resize my pixel-art-bevelled masterpiece now...somehow. Eldin 20:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Sadder than not being allowed icons? -- ab.er.rant 20:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Allowed? I can just imagine a swarming majority of editors, most of whom rallied behind this 19x19 cause with gusto, all giving chase with pitchforks because a flagrant policy violator dared to go to 20 pixels wide (and therefore breaking Internet Law). The scandal! -- Dashface 01:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Black & Red signature names

I've noticed a few users are using black or red (sometimes in bold) in their link, personally I find this to be quite irritating as it conflicts with wiki link formatting. --Jamie 15:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That's true. Especially the black makes links hard to spot. I suggest disallowing these two colors. -- (gem / talk) 17:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This was discussed before, and I don't know how I feel about it still. I think red should definitely be disallowed. LordBiro 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aw don't take my black away from me... :'( Isn't changing the default color of the link + bold = against policy anyway? -- Scourge 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I agree with policing things that are annoyances, if we create too many policies that correct irritations (which of course creates an irritation to the person it affects) it just gives a 'police state' mentality. There are policies we need people to follow, there is no need for this only a wish. Vladtheemailer 17:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not simply that they are annoyances. Colours have meanings. Red text means a missing article, black text means normal text and blue text means a link to another article. If you alter these rules you are breaking the user interface for readers. This is important. LordBiro 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Which is exactly what I meant. --Jamie 18:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I hardly think it breaks the user interface. Bear in mind we are talking specifically about signatures. AFAIK, signatures are always linkable. The worse case scenario is that someone uses red or black in their signature and a viewer thinks it points to no content or is not linkable so they don't go to that persons User Page. Personally I know I've clicked Scourges signature even though its black without a thought about it. Still it doesn't affect me as I leave it the default so if you want to make it a policy then so be it, but I still don't see any real need for it. Vladtheemailer 19:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually the black doesn't necesarily link to the users user page. The policy just requires a link and the image is used as a link. I would like to prevent any problems caused by the two colors. There are enough colors to use even without these two. -- (gem / talk) 19:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't really care enough to be the only dissenter VladTheEmailer 20:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Just kidding. VladTheEmailer 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

lol LordBiro 20:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How about just stating that the signature links should look like valid links? -- ab.er.rant 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Wait, I can't have red text, but User X can have an image?" There's no way to meaningfully pull off this sort of restriction. —Tanaric 00:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that there are many shades of red and grey that would still look like red (or close) but technicially would still be allowed. Asking users to create a signature that looks like a valid link is so far the best approach to what we want. Still, I'm undecided wethere this issue in fact needs regulation. We have the no-bold rule for links with custom colors. Taken seriously, this rule is enough to prevent disturbing red links. As for black, I don't find it disturbing at all. ~ dragon legacy 03:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't link colours depend on your browser default? - BeXoR 04:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Tanaric, are you suggesting that icon images and text colours are too similar to have different rules? I think it's perfectly reasonable to use images in signatures, provided you use alt tags properly (and I'm not suggesting that everyone is), but I think that using colours for signatures that could confuse readers is wrong. I see the two as different things, I take it from your comment that you think that you cannot restrict coloured text without also restricting icons. Is that correct?

BeXoR, I believe monobook.css overrides your default link colour choices. There is certainly no option in most browsers as to which colour you would prefer a "missing article" link to be. LordBiro 05:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

If I can't have red text in my sig, I could always upload an image of my text, in red.

Pedantry aside, all I intended to say is that there are too many arguments both ways to restrict one and not the other.

A: You can't have red text, it makes people think your page doesn't exist.

B: Then why can you have an image? It breaks talk layouts when I browse at reduced text size.

A: You chose to change the default setting of your browser, that's not our fault.

B: You chose to change the default signature of MediaWiki. That's not my fault!

...etc. I think it's incredibly unfair to restrict one and not the other, that's all. It's not something I intend to argue any further than I already have. —Tanaric 19:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The way I look at it the aesthetics of the page (line height) are different from the usability of the page (associations between, in this example, a link colour and a behaviour). I can cope with aesthetics being ruined, but I can't condone breaking the usability.

However, I do concede that your point makes sense, Tanaric, I just look at the situation differently to you. LordBiro 19:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Both views make sense to me and I'm not too sure which one we should go with. -- (gem / talk) 20:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say we ignore it. Tanaric's kinda right. There's stopping users from moving red text into red icons (sure, the icons are small, but it's still possible. If a user would rather hide his username link by using black, or make ppl think he doesn't have a user page by being red, I think that's the user's problem. We just put in a little note in the policy which explains that using certain colors may conflict with normal wiki and website links. -- ab.er.rant 21:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That is ok to me. -- (gem / talk) 23:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I can live with this for now. LordBiro 05:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Signature

Continuation from User_talk:Eloc_Jcg#Signature.

This discussion has been made aware of me on my talk page and it is more appropriate to bring it here, as it solely involves this policy. I would like to say first that I am suprised that a new user showed me that apparently my nick is breaking policy and, up until now, not an experienced user that knows my user name and has seen my sig a thousand times before. Either I was going to be made an exception and receive special treatment until Eloc brought it up, or suprisingly, I am somehow above policy. In any case, that is one thing I have always stood for regarding policy, no one is above it.

Now, I ignored this policy at the beginning for more contraversial proposals. Quite frankly, this seems the least important policy we have. Does that matter? No, because a policy is a policy. However, albeit late, I will comment on certain things.

Reading the first discussion on this page about icons, it was stated: The suggestion made by me forces all users to have their full user name in the sig. Even those with a sig icon. Who does this apply to? Less than 1% of the population. If I understand this correctly, if I had a picture/image/painting/drawing of something called Gares Redstorm, turned that picture into an icon, replaced my sig with that icon, then I can use a single icon for my sig? Does it clearly show my full user name? Yes, because in all actuality, that icon I uploaded is called Gares Redstorm. Do people know the icon is called Gares Redstorm somewhere else which makes it technically legal here? The icon clearly states the full name of the user, per policy, and that is all that matters. It would not be any different than to have the username Mona Lisa and use an icon of the painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

Now to the part regarding using full names (non-icon) in your signature. I can see and understand where using Gares for User:Gares Redstorm and someone comes along and registers User:Gares. That would be very confusing and potentially determintal should it be a vandal that wishes to defame your character and pose as you. Though I do see the value of simplication. Is it an important value in this case? Not necessarily. Though its effects are no where near potentially harmful to a user's eyes looking at icons or colored sigs every other post. In my experience, I have seen no cases of identity theft, though that does not mean it has not happened, nor does it mean it could not happen here. What if you have both Gares Redstorm and Gares registered for yourself? Would you not be able to use one of them as your signature as long as the other one redirected to your username? Who is to say you are not using your full username then? Technically, as both Gares and Gares Redstorm are registered to you and are linked, you are violating no breach of policy. — Gares 11:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason why no one has probably said you anything about your isg is that no one has noticed. You've been using 'Gares' in your sig for ages and it's so normal for older users that they just don't realise that it isn't your real user name.

Well, back to topic. Isn't having two accounts violation of a policy? (In a hurry so no time to check) I'm not 100% opposed to using sigs like 'Gares', 'Eloc' and 'Izzy', but there needs to be a clear set of rules that cannot be abused in any way. -- (gem / talk) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

But, I have had been using 'Eloc' since the Official launch of GWW. I don't believe people have seen anything else than that.--Eloc 12:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't use Gares for a long time on GWiki until I got tired of having that long name showing up everywhere, users calling me Gares Redstorm, and in real life I hardly every sign any documents in a social atmosphere with my full name. From where I come, no one calls others by their full names, "Hey Bob Terwilliger", instead of "Hey Bob". I have been using the Gares Redstorm name for 9+ years and that is my persona on the web, first and last name. For example, you will find that name on almost every Guild Wars fansite. ANet asked me to give them my user name from GWiki. If I knew this was going to be an issue regarding signing full names, I would have possibly asked to change my rights to a different account. However, all that was done before this policy was inacted. That can be easily solved by me asking them to change if it comes down to it. Though, if having multiple accounts is in violation of some policy, then you will have to enforce that on the ANet staff as well. I know they registered multiple accounts exactly for my point above. Vandals might register those names and pose as them, but you have to remember that no one is above policy. So...

This needs to be re-evaluated from a new perspective. If users are willing, give them the choice to decide if they want to risk having someone pose as them by shortening their usernames for their nicks or if someone does register the nick they are using, then they will have to resort to changing their sig back to their full username. — Gares 13:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with some of your points, Gares.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a user such as yourself to register User:Gares and redirect it to User:Gares Redstorm, effectively removing the risk of someone impersonating you in future. I think that this should be a pre-requisite for shortening your user name. If Eloc Jcg wishes to use the name Eloc then I recommend that he, too, registers User:Eloc and redirects it. This eliminates the possibility that either A) someone registers the shorter name in the future or B) someone has already registered the name.

I do think, though, that signing comments with a name that varies radically from your user name is confusing. If I look at recent changes and see User:Bob has just added a comment, and the last comment added is from someone calling themselves "The Iron Horseman" or something then I think that's problematic. I don't know if I would personally go as far as to produce policy for it, but it would annoy me. Even registering the other user name would not be acceptable to me in this situation.

Regarding signature icons, please bear in mind that the alt attribute of the image is extremely important. If a user uses a gem as an icon (I would to whom I could be referring?) then they should set the alt tag accordingly, either to "Gem" or "User:Gem" or " " (i.e. blank) if the name is already included in the signature. LordBiro 14:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I do see what you are getting at Gares. I have been using Eloc Jcg for 4+ years and have even gone to the trouble to copyright it. I will also register User:Eloc and make a redirect.--Eloc 19:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Done.--Eloc 19:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

LordBiros ideas are pretty good. I would suggest that the shorter name used must be registered, redirected and banned. The shorter name should still be recognised as your name, so it should be part of your full username, like Gares and Eloc. -- (gem / talk) 07:18, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that the ban is necessary. If "Gares Redstorm" decided to sockpuppet with the account "Gares" then... well... he would be very stupid :P LordBiro 07:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

A ban doesn't hurt, though it's not too important. -- (gem / talk) 08:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

This is first part is just for me and no one else. If I started to sockpuppet using both names, you can bet I finally had a nervous breakdown from my job and you can just go ahead and ban both accounts, cause they probably won't let me use a computer where they take me. :p

As Gem mentioned, because I have been signing Gares for so long, I doubt many even realize my username account is actually Gares Redstorm. I do agree that it must be a shortened version of the original name. Not the example Biro put for 'Bob' signing as 'The Iron Horseman'. Now that is definitely confusing for other users and should be stressed. That is, if this recent discussion becomes an addendum to the current policy. — Gares 10:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Shortened, and shortened only. No initials or other forms of abbreviations.

But if we're allowing people to create additional accounts just to redirect to a user account with a long name... is it then legal for me to register "User:Ab", "User:Ab.er", "User:Aber", "User:Aberrant", "User:Rant", "User:Er.rant", and "User:Errant" and have them all redirect to me? (I'm just making a case against allowing multiple accounts solely for redirects). -- ab.er.rant 02:59, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

How about if we only allow this for user names with multiple parts so that the short version must be one of those parts. It must ofcourse be a recognisable part, just like Eloc and Gares are. The second part of 'Eloc Jcg' would not be acceptable for example. -- (gem / talk) 03:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that's still pretty subjective. Would underscores and periods be considered as having multiple parts? What if I'd like to go with an Asian convention and the second part of my user name is actually my personal name? I'm not totally opposed to the idea of redirects, just wanna highlight this. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) This is directed towards Eloc, you said "I have been using Eloc Jcg for 4+ years and have even gone to the trouble to copyright it. " <-- How does one go about copyrighting a word? And by using that word on this wiki wouldn't that mean you have to release it under the GFDL license? Just a little confused :S -- Scourge 04:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Aberrant: I don't see a problem with the shorter part being the second part of the name. Or what did you mean?

Underscores in user names are a gray zone, but I would see them as multiple part user names just like the underscore was replaced by a space. The shorter name should still be recognizble by itself. For example I don't see a difference in 'Eloc Jcg' and 'Eloc_Jcg'. -- (gem / talk) 04:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm just thinking that this exception to the policy seems too specifically catering for usernames that resemble western names (i.e. firstname lastname). I'd argue that if we allow the first name part to be a legal redirect account, why do not allow the last name part to be a redirect as well? For users like User:Gemini Knight Juno and User:Goku The Man Slayer, this shortening of the user name is easily arguable for redirects for "Juno" and "The Man Slayer". -- ab.er.rant 04:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, if we're bothering with rules for redirects, why not just drop the "must be visible" part and put a note there specifically warning that if your signature does not match your actual username, there is an obvious risk of impersonation and mis-attribution. I'd rather deal with rules regarding how many accounts you can have and let the user redirect however they want. It's really their problem if other users can't recognise them from their signatures. -- ab.er.rant 04:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a good point actually. Need to think about it. (I'm playing on our local ITG arcade atm, so might take a whie ;D ) -- (gem / talk) 05:08, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think I said that the abbreviated name has to be the first or the second word. Why would I want to abbreviate my named to "Lord"? Surely I would use "Biro".

I think the only condition of creating new usernames should be that they are a substring of the longer username. This means that Biro -> LordBiro is acceptable but Bob -> Robert is not. This is the only fair way I can think of doing it. LordBiro 05:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Biro ... I can't see any fair way of accomplishing this other than defining it as a substring of the longer name - but I'm not sure that definition really says what we're meaning to accomplish by this. For LordBiro, the two obvious ones are "Lord" and "Biro" ... but technically, "ordBir" is also a substring. Also, this leaves a question on how many potential substrings can be made from a single user's name - and should a user be permitted to register every possible substring permutation of their name? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, before we're going really geeky here, I just want to remind you that whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, we should be able to put it into simple phrases. We agreed before that our users shouldn't need a Ph. D. in computing to contribute and follow the rules. ~ dragon legacy 12:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

"ordBir" - I love it!

Gaile has already registered "Gaile" and "Gaile Grey" that redirect to her user page. I don't think we need to set hard limits to the number of names a person registers. The scope for abuse is slim, really, since it affords the user no real advantage. Gaile already has two alternative usernames registered, and I think that actually registering User:Gaile Grey makes a lot of sense... LordBiro 12:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

ANet employees are a bit of a special case as they use their real world names so that they can be recognised, but some, eg Izzy, want to use a nickname too. I would leave them completely out of the policy as they are probably not going to cause any disturbance anyway. ;P

I would suggest allowing registering one sub string only as the only use for them would be the signature and a user is unable to use more than one signature. :) -- (gem / talk) 17:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it might be best if, for the time being at least, we do not set a limit on the number of substrings a user registers. I can't imagine anyone registering more than 2 anyway. If there is an instance where one user registers a lot of names we can discuss it again but, in honesty, I can't see this happening. I mean, we have no policy forbidding this on the GuildWiki and I've never seen it happen. LordBiro 17:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Couldn't we do like what's on Wikipedia. If you try registering with a name that is to close to an already existing name then it won't let you. For example - my friend tried registering on Wikipedia under the name A.G.E but it wouldn't let him because they said it was to close to the name ==AGE==.--Eloc 17:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

They have a system where you can request for similarly-named accounts to be created for you. See this. We don't have, and never will, have the number of users that Wikipedia gets so I see no point in emulating them for this. Like I said, the simplest way is to just remove the ruling, add a little warning note, and leave it to the user to worry about impersonation. While multiple accounts are discouraged, if the sysops are fine with ppl creating multiple accounts just to kinda like "camp" on substrings of their username, then I'm fine too. -- ab.er.rant 19:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Put simply, until this causes a problem, I don't see the need to adjudicate it. —Tanaric 02:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I was having trouble reconciling a user's edits with the comments on a talk page, but that was because their username and signature were completely different. - BeXoR 03:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Completely different user names have caused problems. For example User:Jzf and User:Seph Valentine at GuildWiki. I believe we need to regluate this. -- (gem / talk) 04:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

As usual you are quite ambiguous Tanaric ;P What do you think does not pose a problem?

• Using an abbreviated signature? While it might not be problematic if I start using the name Biro I can imagine all hell breaking loose if I had not registered that name and someone else did and started making edits. I certainly think it should be at least a guideline that users register those names that they plan to use.
• Allowing users to register multiple names? On this front I agree that we should not produce policy limiting the number of names until someone abuses it.
• Allowing users to sign with a wildly different name to their username? Personally I find this confusing. On the few occasions when I've seen this happen I've wondered if one user has been trying to impersonate another.

Some clarification of your position would be welcome. LordBiro 04:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

So, I don't think me registering User:Eloc then redirecting it caused any problems, right?--Eloc 22:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

As usual you summed up my opinion in easy-to-read bullets, Biro. :) —Tanaric 01:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How about a wiki guideline along the lines of "Don't use a misleading name for signatures. If you use a shortened form of your username, it is recommended that you register the account of that shortened version. (If someone else does, you might not be able to use it)"? --Rezyk 01:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Lol, I am pleased when that happens, Tanaric! And Rezyk, that text makes perfect sense! I support adding something similar to that which Rezyk suggested. LordBiro 05:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

With some minor wording tweks it is ok to me. -- (gem / talk) 05:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Umm... do we even want to suggest to others to register additional accounts just for the sake of the signature? So... if I change my signature to "rant", I can register "User:Rant"? And then.... I change it to "Ab" and proceed to register "User:Ab"... I guess this will rarely happen but I don't see the need to specifically and explicitly suggest to users to create additional accounts. As per my previous suggestion, just a little warning that a shortened signature invites risk of impersonation and mis-attribution and leave it at that. Or... maybe it's just my pet peeve that one shouldn't create multiple accounts. Never mind. -- ab.er.rant 07:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

More and more people are beginning to use "nicknames" and it's starting to be annoying. It doesn't seem so bad when your name is a bit different, like Eloc, or Gares, but when someone shortens their user name to something not as unusual, for instance "Angel" or "Killer", etc, it becomes a problem. Also when the user isn't as widely known. I think the misleading names are irritating. Register under the name you want as your signature! - BeXoR 11:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*raises hand for support* -- ab.er.rant 02:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, I would never remember my user name as Eloc. I can only remember it as Eloc Jcg. Doesn't really matter, I redirected it anyways.--Eloc 19:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyways, can we change the policy so that you can have you signature as, for example, Eloc or Gares and have your user name as Eloc Jcg or Gares Redstorm and have the shortened versions just recirect to your user page?--Eloc 03:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Which part of the policy would you change, and what would you have it say instead? - BeXoR 04:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Appearance and colour. It would change "Signatures must clearly show the full user name of the user." to "Signatures may show a shortened version of your user name as long as you register that shortened version as an account & redirect it to your user page and it has to make sense." or something like that.--Eloc 15:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

My proposal: Signatures may show a shortened version of your user name as long as you register that shortened version as a user account and make the user page of the new ccount a redirect to your user page. The shorter version must still be easily recognised as a variation of your name. You are not allowed to use anything that might get mixed with another user. -- (gem / talk) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly whay I said but you probably have a English 30 edumactation, I only have English 10 right now.--Eloc 20:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Based on Gem's version, slightly changed: Signatures may show a shortened version of your user name. In order to do this you must register that shortened version as a user account and make the user page of the new account a redirect to your user page. The shorter version must still be easily recognized as a variation of your name and must not be anything that could be confused with another user. I believe that is grammatically correct and free of spelling errors.  :) --Rainith 22:07, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. - BeXoR 00:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Rainith. I was in a real hurry when writing that like always. :) I know I make a lot of typos and don't always have the time to form stuff correctly when I try to go through the 2 wiki watchlists in 5 minutes. -- (gem / talk) 00:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem Gem. I'm sure your English is much better than my Finnish.  :) --Rainith 00:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Finnish is not used to communicate with people over the internet. ;P Besides I have the same problem with too little time when writing anything in Finnish. :/ -- (gem / talk) 01:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

With change

1. --Eloc 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Against Change

(Please don't do this voting thing. We're not using votes to make decisions.)

I can't help but be the nay-sayer again... this part "must not be anything that could be confused with another user". How would you ensure that the user goes and look up the user list to check if another user with a very similar name exists or not? Curious, can sysops delete accounts? Mentioning "confused" is pointless. Even if it's confusing to sign as "Aber" when "Ab.er" exists as another user, there's nothing that prevents "Aber" from being created. Consider also the other way around. What if another person created a new account "Garess", or "Elok". The existing signatures are suddenly in violation of this policy. -- ab.er.rant 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No one is required to go through the user list. It's just there to put some reason in peopls minds and to give us the opportunity to tell someone ot change their sig if it is really too hard to say who it is. And yes, if someone creates those accounts later, the sigs will not be allowed anymore, therefore forcing those users to change their sig. (Though the old sigs don't need to be changed on all talk pages) -- (gem / talk) 01:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Response to Ab.er.rant - If you desire a shortened user name, then you register the other possible variations as accounts and add a redirect. See User:Eloc. It automatically redirects to User:Eloc Jcg.--Eloc 02:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, but I know how to make a redirect and no, I don't want a shorter name. I was just using my username as an example and, similar to all my previous comments here, just pointing out potential situations/issues that might arise. -- ab.er.rant 03:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Aberrant. The final sentence of the text should be The shorter version must be an easily recognized variation of your name. and leave it at that. The additional part of the sentence above implies that the user in question has to go to some lengths to ensure that the abbreviation is unique, but this is quite impractical. Let's just leave it shorter and simpler. LordBiro 03:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well ya, I want my name to be short and simple.--Eloc 03:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes I wonder if you know what's going on, Eloc. LordBiro 04:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ya know? I wonder that sometimes to. Alot of the time (all the time) I am just kinda out of it. I usually agree with people even though I have no clue what they are saying.--Eloc 05:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

lol :) I'll make myself more clear. I think the following text should be added to the policy:

Signatures may show a shortened version of your user name. In order to do this you must register that shortened version as a user account and make the user page of the new account a redirect to your user page. The shorter version must be an easily recognized variation of your name.

What do you think Eloc? LordBiro 05:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

...What? Srry, kinda out of it. Lol, jk. Ya, looks good.--Eloc 06:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yay, found a random wlan on my weekend trip. :) That looks good to me. If no one says anything againts it toay or tomorrow, add it tothe policy page. -- (gem / talk) 09:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

M'kay.--Eloc 22:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

2 people 1 account

I'm probably setting myself up for another type of policy restriction, such as having two people on one account. =P
-side info- we live together. we have our own gw account, we share items, we share information, we share golds... etc. pretty much, we're helping each other but I'm the only one really adding the stuff. sometimes he uses the talk page though. he registered for this account, but he wanted me to maintain it since he's not very savvy with codes n such (neither am i, but that's beside the point).

-the real question- I was wondering if I could squeeze my own name in the signature somehow. I had it as "Zem & Jen", but I could see how that could be bad. how about ZemJen or Zemmyjen or Zemmy jen. well, i would like it better if my name came first, but bleh. If not then, how about I put my name in an icon? would that be acceptable? Not sure if I could squeeze my own name in a 19x19 icon though... I would register for my own account, but I've already put so much work into his... bluargh! Well, if this is all a no no, I'll just make an icon of my cat.--Zemmy 12:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't think it matters if 2 people share the same account, especially if you live together. It is alot easier than logging out then logging in as someone else & then they think your are sock puppeting.--Eloc 18:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Err, why not just adopt that name as your own :) But seriously, just create whatever signature you want (if it's an image, that note of the icon restrictions), then read the last few paragraphs of the above section regarding how the majority decided to resolve the issue of having a signature differing from your username. -- ab.er.rant 02:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I would register the name you want to use. If you can register "Zem & Jen" then I don't see the problem. LordBiro 04:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

signature images

the following point should be added to the list under 5.3 Images:

• The image file must abide by the user images policy.

--84-175 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Instead of providing a link to another page I would suggest putting the rules directly in this article:

• The image name must be prefixed with the word "User" followed by your user name (for example "Image:User Example sig.jpg").
• The description of the image file must include the {{user image}} template.

-- (gem / talk) 06:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

My signature

Now, I was wondering if I could use - - File:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.png. It takes up as much space as my current signature, page wise. I know that your only allowed to have one image, 19x19 in your signature. I'm thinking I will get a no for an answer, but why not ask =) ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 17:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I just counted. That's five (5) internal image links, not one (1). ;D. Plus they are not even black, which hurts my head. -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 17:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

XD yeah. I might just use a 19x19 one with a ~ in front of it, or maby make a black star (star stands for 5 star general, BlackGeneral) thats where the 5 came from. =) ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 17:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If you just use File:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.pngFile:Blackgeneralstar.png, then it doesn't show your name at all. You can't have just a picture in your name, you must also have your name.--Eloc 18:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Gem? =) ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 18:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit: he has gem next to it. nvm ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 18:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I shouldn't have but I created , you might consider something like BlackGeneral. If you like the icon, then please use it with or without credit ;) -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 20:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

<blink>

I removed it because I tested it and it doesn't work, so why keep it there?--§ Eloc § 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's weird, I'm sure it has worked before. If the tag really doesn't work on any browser, then we don't need that note.

Remember, when making such changes to policy articles, put an edit note that explains your edit. -- (gem / talk) 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<span style="text-decoration:blink;">Hello World!</span> works. -Smurf 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we leave it as 'no animations' and leave the blink mention out. -- (gem / talk) 05:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should put in the blink anyway. We're trying to tell people not to do it, not show people how to do it. -- ab.er.rant 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem now? The blink thing was removed allready. And we definitely need to have a rule against animated text or otherwise some wiseass will have an animated sig in no time. -- (gem / talk) 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was just trying to say that we shouldn't show how to do the formatting that we don't want ppl to use. -- ab.er.rant 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)