Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive2

Sig. Short

Are we allowed to add in other names in our sig.? I have my registered name Hanks Gotcha and recently changed my sig to Big Hank. I created an account with the name Big Hank and abviously it was available, On the user page Big Hank I redirected to User:Hanks Gotcha. So i guess my question is, Can I do this? File:Image-User Hanks Gotcha sig.png Big Hank (talk · contributions) 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see this for more info. File:Image-User Hanks Gotcha sig.png Big Hank (talk · contributions) 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have been taken up here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link Santax? - BeX 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's this one. But as I understand it, using "Big Hank" as your username should not be allowed because it is neither a shortened version of your user name nor a slight variation of it. -- ab.er.rant 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But of course, you can always go and register a new "Big Hank" and then redirect "Hanks Gotcha" to "Big Hank". And you can now use "Big Hank" as your user name. This is the kind of situation that I wanted to avoid by arguing against allowing people to sign with a different name, because then alot of people will end up with owning multiple accounts. -- ab.er.rant 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature length

This is ridiculous, I'm seeing people with more than 200 character's in their sig. I think we should have a max allowed character so we dont see stuff like this after every comment:
   [[Image:User_Riven_sigicon.png]] [[User:Riven|<span style="border-bottom:5px solid #ffc000;color:#ff6000;font-weight:bold;font-family:Sylfaen, serif;position:relative;bottom:5px;">[riVen]</span>]] 
Creates:
    [riVen] 

~ Kurd 10:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Kurd. That signature caught my eye too. However, I do want to suggest to increase the signature image width to something else than 19px, perhaps 2x the heigth?. The height should remain @ 19px. The height is a restriction to keep the line spacing in check, but the width doesn't necessarily have a big influence on page-formatting. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 10:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Which brings up another question. It doesn't say anywhere in the policy that we must specifically have our username in text. See User talk:Helena for an example. So technically, if we were to fit our name into a signature image, and redirect that image to our user/talk then it follows the policy, right? I don't know if that's such a great thing, but it has to be brought up. - BeX 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As we speak I have a edit window open for Helena regarding her signature. :) And I'm also confused on the part whether there has to be a textual link to the user or user talk page. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 10:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict)Personally, I think that comments should be read on the talk page, not in the edit box... also, template sigs should be allowed because they can be easily updated retroactively, take up way less room and allow for pretty sigs like Riven's without hurting the page code. On a completely unrelated note, nobody look at my sig code... --Santax TALK CONTRIBS LOGS 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to point out to Kurd that he can slap a policy violation comment on Riven's talk page, since his signature clearly violates GWW:SIGN#Length. And now I'm going to do that to you too Santax! ;) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Using a template for signatures is not a good idea because every time you edit it, thousands of pages have to be recached. :P - BeX 11:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig templates is no solution. But the reason i made this toptic is because nowhere it says that you have to stick to it. It says: "if you do this, this is what will happen so please don't do it". I hate the ass-kissing language. It needs to be a clear rule saying do it this way or don't ~ Kurd 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ended up getting into a spitting contest with Riven about this. Apparently he's not really interested that his signature isn't compliant with our policies. As a matter of fact he thinks he is above everything on this wiki. *shrug* Eventually he'll have to adapt or get a ban for violating the policy, I believe. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah I don't think I'm above anything, I just don't care for rules when they are silly. a) Allow for images wider than 19px so people can actually put their name in there, or b) Drop the requirement of needing to have your name in your sig (it's not like it's hard to find out the full/real user name behind a sig anyway), or c) Allow for longer raw code, since, as Santax pointed out, you should be reading comments on the talk page, not the edit box. Simple.    [riVen]  22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at your sig, how is anyone going to find their way trough 220 character's of code and tags ~ Kurd 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for you constructive input Riven. I appreciate that. You do have to realize that this policy isn't there necessarily for wiki-veterans. If a new contributor wants to add his comment, I think it might be possible for him/her to get swamped by all the code signatures like yours are generating. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So 220 characters would be too confusing, but "only" 150 not? Yeah right. Anyway, messages are generally delimited by one or more colons at the beginning of the message, making it extremely easy to make out different messages. Take a look at this page's editbox... there's absolutely nothing hard about spotting where a new message starts. And if for some reason to a new user it really is confusing, then, as mentioned, 150 chars would hardly make a difference, it's still a lot.    [riVen]  23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a persuasive argument Riven. Who's in favour of decreasing the signature length to something close to 50 characters? LordBiro 08:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More like 15, IMO.    [riVen]  08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No need to change it drastically, its fine as it is now. If everyone just sticked to it. 15 is impossible as the ((Image:_sig_icon)) alrdy takes up over the 15. ~ Kurd 08:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We could just go full out and not allow custom signatures at all? ;) Although I think 150 characters is the mark to say, over this mark is just too much. If we are going to have a mark, it has to be specific, we can't just say "Don't make a long sig". A number is easily measured. It's not about 220 is confusing and 150 is not, imo. It's about the limit we have made, and 220 is far past that limit. 160, and I wouldn't bother. (And as a side note, I read most comments "in the edit box", through the diff link. I really dislike long signatures, because they make it harder to read, for me.) - anja 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have several things to say. First, Riven your sig is currently in violation of this policy. Regardless of how you feel about it, please change your sig to something that complies with policy until a resolution on this is reached.

Second is that, given the way the new user page policy draft is going, why are we continuing with this discussion on restrictions? I think this is probably another policy that Karlos also thinks is rather silly. And given the precedent of people supporting a no-restrictions-until-nit-becomes-necessary, I would like to see the icon width restriction dropped (height is retained for obvious readability purposes), and if the number of characters is an issue, drop the restriction on user sig templates.

We only require that the user's sig contain a clear link to that user's page or his talk page (no attempt to hide it by limiting it to a 1-character link for example). Having a sig to clearly identify the user? I opposed letting user sigs display a name that is not their user name. If that was the rule, then we wouldn't have a problem of what sort of names are allowed to be used. But since we do have those problems now, I propose that any purely iconic sig must be named with the general convention that was adopted, and the icon must clearly show their username (or one of their other usernames...). Maximum icon size and width and sig length? We'll just throw in just recommendations about not going overboard and put in a clause saying that if many people start complaining, then you are required to comply. I'll probably write up a draft when I get more time. -- ab.er.rant 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not fully understand all of this (what you really meant), but I would personally think my own signature would be accepted if I made it smaller so the height became 19 px. And the reason I wrote this is that Kurd told me to. :P As I said on my own talk page: my signature takes much less space than many others, both in the coding and in the actual article. - helena 11:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like that. Now it's 19px*34px. Not much at all. - helena 11:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can accept 19x35 ~ Kurd 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Clear explanation: The policy currently states 19x19 maximum size. Yours is over the limit and hence in violation. I understand that you feel that there's nothing wrong with it and it's actually shorter than most signatures, but it would be good if you could comply with the policy as it is, and join this discussion on how to change to policy. But as a side note, by reducing the height of your sig icon to 19px, it's no longer clearly and easily readable. And this may be a good example of why we need to define what is "username is clearly visible" (provided people actually agree with me to remove most of the icon restrictions).

And as an additional side note, anyone noticed Raph's signature? See an example here. I believe that such signatures are for forums. The plain-text nature of wiki talk pages make those quotes disruptive when trying to follow a discussion. -- ab.er.rant 13:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand why your username has to be in your sig. People that use a distinctive icon get recognized and become known by that icon anyway. All of my 3 sigs violate some part of the policy in some way, even though all 3 of them are perfectly fine to the eye and make my identity perfectly clear:     [riVen] , , . First one has too much code, second one has an icon that is too wide, third one doesn't include my username. You guys really like to make things overly complicated don't you? 15:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop thinking about yourself, were trying to make a policy for every one. There are a few things that i think have to be within the policy:

• Signature must contain your user name no nicknames and other stuff
• A max character's, 150 is good enough.
• Icon must be 19px high, the width can be bigger.

Someone disagrees? ~ Kurd 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You started this because of me, so obviously I'm gonna defend my position. Oh btw Kurd, your sig icon's filename does not follow the policy. Ban pl0x.    [riVen]  18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think nickname is fine as long as it's done they way it is now, register a new account and redirect. (And a logical short of your real username) - anja 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not really make sense to allow nicknames, but not allow pictures. Both can be clear or unclear, depending on the variant you use (I know I once typed Bex in somewhere when I really needed bexor). What I am much more worried about is people changing their sig: A nickname or icon is fine, as long as it always stays the same. Once people go about changing their sig every second month, I argue for the full user name in the sig. --Xeeron 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would change the policy to that:

• Images allowed (max height 19px)
• complete signature width 150px (including images but excluding timestamp and small seperators eg. "-")
• Username can be used instead of a textual name but must use the complete username as title ([[Image:Sig.jpg|Complete Username]]) - in that case the image should be easily reminding (eg. complete name in image etc.)
• maximal code size: 150-200 (=175?) chars

This would be my proposal. poke | talk 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, with the small addition that the max height on images also be applied to the sig in its entirety - no large text/formatting that'd cause the same issues as large images. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Riven, THIS is why we require that everyone must use sigs that clearly state their username and that it is a violation to use something else. -- 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(the above line posted by me) It is a measure used to guard against and handle impersonations and mischief. So according to you, you should be allowed to use whatever sig you want? In that case, I'll probably use whatever sig you use whenever I feel like it. And please don't start calling for bans out of spite. -- ab.er.rant 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say it is okay to deliberately impersonate someone else by using their sigicon? And that ban remark was obviously sarcastic. He started all of this because of my sig violating policy, and then I realized his own sig is against policy, hence the sarcastic "ban pl0x" remark. I know it's not always easy to spot sarcasm in text, but in this case it was pretty obvious, methinks.    [riVen]  06:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Poke, by 150px width I assume you meant only the icon. So I can use both text and one image as long as the resulting text is less than 200 characters? Does that max include the timestamp? Let's just say something like "don't go overboard with the formatting one's sig. If the formatting is complex, consider using an image instead. In general, sig text should be kept shorter than 150 characters (excluding timestamp?), to keep sig text clean on edit pages. If several users validly and rightly complains about your sig, then please understand that you are required to respect that and make the necessary modifications". Something like that rather than a hard limit. -- ab.er.rant 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean 150px width for text and images (but excluding timestamp and seperators). And the signatures code (again excluding timestamp and seperators) must not exceed a length of 150-200 characters. Also please note that you can always use someones signature.. It does not have to be an image.. -- ab.er.rant 09:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You see? poke | talk 09:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to use someone else's signature...? - helena 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How are we going to measure pixels along with text and images ~ Kurd 10:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot -> measuring? Your signature is for example ~50px wide. And Helena, see aberrant's previous comment on using others signature images. poke | talk 10:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop the ass-kissing language, its do it this way or dont ~ Kurd 10:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft

There are so many different suggestions floating around, I feel this would benefit from making a policy draft, so one can actually read what is proposed to change (and maybe to help getting many suggestions down to one new draft). --Xeeron 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've drafted it at Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments/Draft070723. All further comments should go on the talk page there. -- ab.er.rant 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sig image naming

I think the last edit makes it too ambiguous. User images must be prefixed with "user <yourname>" (although I mislabelled the heading about this in the image use policy as user page images rather than user images). While you are free to use whatever file type or description you want, it still should be prefixed by the "User <yourname>", because it is a user image! - BeX 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "User Name_" filename prefix from the very start was meant to distinguish images which were for use in the user namespace, and not for "user images", see Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Archive 2#Images on user pages. It's also how it's described in GWW:USER, GWW:IMAGE and {{user image}} (which was designed to be used together with that prefix). When adding that to the policy Gem also correctly noted in the edit summary that he was using the word "should" purposefully, as no decision had been taken to require this yet. My earlier edit was simply clarifying this particular point, after some editors asked from another user to reupload his sig under a "correct" name, citing this policy. If we're going to add that requirement, it shouldn't be done by anyone unilaterally changing the meaning of a well-defined usage without any discussion.

If we're changing the use of the User_ prefix and {{user image}} template to "user images" instead of "user page images", lets do it properly: we'll need to not only reword those other policies and template, but also define what exactly is a "user image" and what isn't. Are this, this and this user images or not? They were never used in my userspace, but they were used in a wiki discussion. Likewise, Image:User Dirigible justify vs center.jpg, Image:User Dirigible Saint Anjeka's Shrine map.jpg and Image:User Dirigible Disrupting Chop.jpg were used to illustrate a point or another in various discussions, are they still user images? In another thread you mentioned userbox images, are those user images (even if a userbox may be sucky enough for only that one person to want to keep using it? even if that userbox is so personal that only the uploader will want to use it?). Lets clarify these issues before invalidating the way we've been using that prefix and that template so far. --Dirigible 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the archive, and look at the section that caused the addition of that note, it links to this part of GWW:USER. Are signature images not personal images? - BeX 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the entirety of GWW:USER concerns exclusively pages in userspace, I don't see why a mention of "personal images" in that section would include signatures, which can be found all over the wiki's namespaces--Dirigible 04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Dirigible's latest edit is fine, but because of the clean up project, I would much rather a discussion on the exact wording of this be mentioned and discussed in the latest draft. -- ab.er.rant 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(curse your edit-conflicting, Aber)Given both "The image file must be unique to the user signature." and "The image file must redirect to the users user page or talk page." (that needs an apostrophe) I would put forth that a signature would almost have to be considered part of the user's userspace, despite its use outside the User namespace. - Tanetris 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Sigs are user images too. They should at least start with User <username> ~ Kurd 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than some weird way of defining user space, I'd rather like to see a straight forward rule stating "signatures need to be called "user xyz something." or along those lines. --Xeeron

Exactly. -- ab.er.rant 10:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And Dirigible, in my opinion all of your mentioned images are user images. They are used by you on talk pages or in your userspace but they are not useful for others (especially not for use in the Main namespace) except from referring to your statement. So I think all images uploaded by users which are not uploaded for public use in the Main space or for use by others without referring to you are user images. poke | talk 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dirigible was asking whether "user image" means images a user uploaded for his own use, or whether it means images that are used in user pages. I believe the original definition of a user image was the latter, but its meaning seems to have changed into the former. -- ab.er.rant 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Further

By their nature, signature images end up in talk pages all over the wiki, including user talk pages. If a user has an inappropriately named sig image, gets notified of the policy and changes his signature to a correctly named one, what happens with the old version? Options that I can see:

a) Delete the old misnamed image. Doing so we may well end up with a lot of red links, possibly making those discussions harder to read. Also, if users are allowed to sign with only an icon and no text (as being discussed at the talk page of the GWW:SIGN draft), then removing these inappropriately named images would make it messy for a later reader to figure out who wrote the comments signed by these red links.

b) Delete the old misnamed image and change all places where it's used to refer to the new image instead. Doing so would require either a lot of manual work or a bot to be dedicated to this purpose. It'd also ping a bunch of pages, ranging from random article talks on watchpages and recentchanges, to user talk pages (which would cause that frighteningly bright orange "you've got a new message" bar to be shown to maybe even dozens of users).

c) We can leave the old image as it is, undeleted and not replaced in old talk pages, maybe with a note that the image is not currently in use anymore added to the image page itself?

Thoughts? Any other options I may have missed? --Dirigible 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a bot can be set up for it, I'd go for option 2. One is a bad idea because I just don't like red links on talk pages, which is why I refrain from writing non-existing links just to show an example :) For option 3, it could be fine too, as it would only mean that a particular has multiple sigs. How we treat this depends on how people feel about a user having multiple versions of a sig icon. On one end is that the sig icon is trivial and a user can change however many times he wants (which leads to the point where "easily recognised" becomes a big issue); the other end is where there is a strict rule stating that a user can only use one sig icon at any one time. Personally, I start with option 3, then option 2 when I feel like it, until everything's updated to the new sig icon before deleting the old. I just like to keep my sig consistent, but am not too particular about needing to update every sig I ever made as soon as possible. -- ab.er.rant 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with option b so far, with an obvious edit summary (since I'm not a bot, I'll ping alot of talk pages), and I would prefer it done that way, if the ones running bots would be ok with doing such "minor" tasks. I don't like option a because red image links are ugly and makes it hard to read, as you say. I don't like option c, because leaving the icon could give the impression that any name is ok, to new users reading that talk page, and then give that icon as an example when we ask them to change their sig. - anja 09:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification here: bot edits will ping talk pages just like regular user edits, they'll make the Orange Bar Of Death pop up. Likewise, bot edits will show up in watchlists just like regular contributions (unless the "Hide bot edits" is manually enabled from the Preferences, which is highly unlikely than the drastic majority of users will ever do). Which is why as far as bothering users goes, option 2 is the messiest one. --Dirigible 10:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought "hide bot edits" was a default option :/ I might have to rethink. - anja 10:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even with watchlist pinging, I think option 2 is the best one because it can solve all images in no time. The only condition would be that the bot edits should be collected so that there will be only one bot flood on each page. (So only one edit with all changes instead of one for each user icon). By this it would be a one-time run for the bots and I don't think that one ping and never again because of this is that bad.. poke | talk 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

having trouble

Im having trouble with the nickname thing. I try and put in my sig and it screws up, look on my talk page. Can anyone help me with this problem because i want to have a fancy signature but not come out looking like crap. --Hellbringer 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you need help with anything wiki-code related, Help:Ask a wiki question is the best place to go. Though, personally, I like simple signatures best. --Xeeron 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You might wanna rename your sig icon so that it's called "User Hellbringer sig.jpg" or something though, because you start using it too much. -- ab.er.rant 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

templates

if i make my signature, for example, {{subst:User:Y0_ich_halt/sig}}, that shouldn't cause any server problems, as the code is pasted once and will not change if i change the template page. so would that be allowed? that text box is too small imo. that's why i wanna do it that way. - Y0_ich_halt 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be practically the same as using "~~~~". As long as you keep the requirements of GWW:SIGN in mind, I don't think this is too big of a problem. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem there. The template can be easily changed by others and thus it's not controllable. poke | talk 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

first: yup, it would be just the same as typing ~~~~, but it's a larger edit window and it has a "preview" button. i figured those four tildes are just a subst: anyway :)> second: i'd notice if someone else than me changes it, as i watch all of my userspace and check those pages first of all watchlist entries. such a sig page would have highest priority. third: it would allow me to save multiple sigs on that one page and choose which one i want with noinclude tags. just like the text file that i have for forum signatures, which i love to change every once a while :) - Y0_ich_halt 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

are you content if i promise to keep my sig page in line with this policy and take any responsibility in case it breaks the policy? :) - Y0_ich_halt 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Our current policy does not allow this: "User signatures should not be stored on a separate page. Your signature must be in the "Nickname" text box in your preferences." Signatures should not be changed often and a template with multiple options would be totally against this principle. Also I think there is a difference between ~~~~ and subst:template as the signature is available instantly when you log in but the template has to be evaluated first. Also I don't know if the code which is displayed by template substitution is only that what is displayed (see subst:move subst:moved for example). poke | talk 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

the policy does not allow it with the reasoning, that it is too much work for the server to change all inclusions when you change that sig page. that's why i'm talking about subst:. also, there is no note about how signatures should be consistent. the user name must be kept anyway, so there's not really much room, and if the policy should've said that, someone failed, because it doesn't. and by including a page with subst:, the subst: is substituted with exactly the code on that page, including { and } for variables, parser functions etc. what exactly should that example with templ:move show me? i'll create an example page how that might look like, which i'll keep until there's a clear reason to avoid it. (i won't use it for now, of course) - Y0_ich_halt 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I meant the moved template, see the Sandbox for an example (see the code). Note that signatures are to "Identify you as a user, and your contributions to Guild Wars Wiki" so often changing signatures are not very useful, especially when you switch between different signatures.. Also the policy says that signatures should not be stored on a wiki page; there does not have to be a reason for it and there is no exception given so the current policy does not allow it. In addition parser functions are not allowed so a switch in one page would not be possible and note that the code is - when using subst - completely copied and the code should not consist of more than 200 characters. poke | talk 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I can see the point here, I still support the current system. Especially switching sigs semi often doesn't sound ok to me. Even a simple change such as changing the icon next to your user name disturbs onnecting people to their comments. -- (gem / talk) 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with gem ~ Kurd 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

just like the text file that i have for forum signatures, which i love to change every once a while A wiki signature should not be treated as a forum signature simply because a forum post has clearly delineated borders. I have a feeling I know what sort of sigs you're referring to (and to whose signature in particular that's currently like that). Personally I dislike those and I've been trying to find a way to propose disallowing them (those soft character limits currently helps). On a wiki talk page, I'm much more concerned with what you have to say regarding a particular issue than seeing what sort of quote you like to tag to your icon and username. -- ab.er.rant 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

doh. neither did i say i'd treat it like my forum sig nor did i say i'd change it every two weeks or so. it would still remain my plain username. variing in font-face, -weight, maybe color... - Y0_ich_halt 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's just the font, color, and weight, the nickname field works fine... :) if you would just like to keep track of old sigs that you used, you can keep track of all of them on one subpage (not a sig page). -- ab.er.rant 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, well... i still don't like that stupid small box that doesn't even have a preview of some kind. that was a suggestion. - Y0_ich_halt 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can always preview new sigs on a sub page. That's how I test mine. :) - BeX 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

of course, but i have to open a subpage for that. ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So what? You aren't changing your sig every day, are you? -- (gem / talk) 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

nope, but i'm inventor-type. that means i'm lazy and wanna get things done more easily. opening a subpage just pisses me off since our connection seems to have some problems. i'm pretty sure it's not the server that makes me load a page for 10 seconds. right now i'm talking about widening the "Nickname" text box in preferences and maybe adding a preview. other ppl might like that, too. - Y0_ich_halt 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Preview in Sandbox and add the following to your monobook.css: #wpNick { width: 800px; } poke | talk 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ahaa, so there's a key for my css... thanks - Y0_ich_halt 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Allowed link

Currently only user page, user talk page and user contributions page links are allowed. I would like to allow an 'e-mail this user' link to Special:Emailuser. -- (gem / talk) 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. It would be useful and helful I also think it is allowed on Wikipedia. --Smashman Lossehelin ∙ talk ∙ E-mail 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with allowing a link to email, as long as the the other limits are not changed.

Smashman, please read this policy carefully, specifically the sections on Appearance and Image. I believe you have been informed that your signature violates this policy already. Your signed name is neither your username nor a shorter form of your username, please use your actual user name instead. And follow the instructions regarding using an icon in your name. Thanks. -- ab.er.rant 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Close tags

Could we incorporate something about needing to close all tags in the next into the next revision draft? -- Gordon Ecker 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not add that here. Closing tag is general wiki etiquette (or editing wisdom, whatever you prefer). It is clear that all tags should be closed always everywhere. No need to write it specifically into sig policy. --Xeeron 11:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and afaik the sig won't save if you leave tags open. or does it? - Y0_ich_halt 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The next revision is here, but it's been pretty quiet. -- ab.er.rant 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)