Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive5

Policy Change

I would like to see the Policy changed so that it actually have to resemble the Username to a certain degree. Its disturbing to see random fantasy Text as Signature which then links to a Userpage which is entirely different from the Link Name. Its perfectly fine to shorten the Username to a certain degree for the Signature imho but using random text is not. See here for one of the Bad examples. Another Bad Example can be found here. Even tho the latter includes the actual Username it should be explicitly disallowed by Policy to add anything else as what is allowed by Policy (Username, Link to Userpage, Talkpage, Contributions). As such I would like the Policy to be changed to something among this Lines:

General rules and considerations

Your signature must resemble the user name it represents to some degree.

• You may shorten your actual Username to some Degree aslong as it doesnt impersonate another User.
• Do not add any other text to your Signature other then the Username, a Link to your Userpage, TalkPage or Contributions.
• The only exception to the above are the words talk, contribs, logs linking to the according page.

The First Line have to be changed and the others are just additions to make things clear. --SilentStorm 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no potential problems with this change, and find that said alteration will only benefit wiki operations, as communication will be made easier. I support this proposal, and furthermore that we immediately effect this change in policy. Lord Belar 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Having your name as it appears on the wiki in your signature shouldn't be a point of contention for anyone. When John Smith signs his name, does he sign Mike Jones? calor (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick note about current wording, you haven't specified what words are allowed in the link to talk, contribs etc. Calor's current signature could be arguably disallowed. It also prohiibts harmless additions such as "Christmas Misery" or like my signature on PvX which is Misery Is Friendly with friendly linking to my talk page. Needs revision imo. Misery 00:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its kinda hard to specify specific Texts to be allowed without the possibility to abuse it in some way. However I think we should do it right when we're on it. Thus I dont think Christmas Misery or Misery is Friendly should be allowed as otherwise there will be people complaining about that such additions to the Signature are allowed but others such as Killer demons just pwn me isnt. About the Issue with the Talk Page link in signatures like Wyn's, Poke's and Calor's Im thinking of a nice wording which will state those are allowed. Especially as we cant seem to trust Common Sense since the Problem with Common sense is that it isnt all that common as a friend of mine used to say. --SilentStorm 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, allow the username and named links (which means, links saying what they are linking to) to talk page, contributions and logs. So an user could have "username (talk)" or "username talk/contributions" or something along those lines. Erasculio 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just leave it up to sysop discretion. Lord Belar 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The last change to the policy was to make it less "strict" as signatures are quite subjective in nature. "A signature should resemble to some degree the user name it represents" is enough for me. It doesn't sound too restricting, it allows slight variations, but keeps to the basics of a signature - it should resemble the user's username. I think the most recent issue came about because someone specifically said username-resemblance wasn't a requirement of the policy, as the policy said it wasn't an absolute requirement (but recommended nonetheless). I don't think this requires too much attention - it's not a major (or even a minor) problem.

Belar, the problem with leaving it to sysop discretion is that new/inexperienced users (who read the policy, or are pointed to the policy) won't be able to see for themselves what is common practice and recommended, which is what a policy is for. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So add a 'recomended' secton, which outline what a signature should most likely be like. Lord Belar 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Problem with the Recommended Stuff is that there are (and always will be) people who think that they are allowed to just sign with random text which has nothing to do with the actual Username because its just recommended but not needed to resemble the Username. Thus there will always be people who will point out that its not an requirement and as such allowed by Policy. The Point of the Proposal is to negate this Grey Zone. 99% of all Signatures are Proposal Confirm - it just eliminates such Discussions while still leaving enough room to customize ones signature as basicly all what was allowed is still allowed. It just puts the common sense part out of the Math by exactly specifying that you have to include your Username and may not add anything else beside Links to TalkPage and Contributions. --SilentStorm 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) While I have yet to set up a signature, if I do, I may want to use 'M2', the phonetic equivalent to my actual user name.  I'm not sure that someone with very little imagination will see the connection and object as a result.      mtew 04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Brains and the "needs to represent the user name to some degree" is all that is needed. Unless people change their signature every other week it doesn't really matter. If people add a lot of crap, just throw it under "excessively long". Of course there are loopholes, but there always are. I believe in my talk archive there are comments from User:N of tab's socks are in a room together. What is the chance that atleast two of Tab's socks that are present in the room share the same birthday?. What's to stop Killer Demon from registering User:Killer Demon, try to kill me and you will be pwned!? When people are being dicks sysops should just ask them to change and ban if they don't comply. Obvious troll is obvious. Misery 10:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Entirely pointless. All text strings resemble every other text string to some degree. Adding stuff that means nothing only leads to wikilawyering.

Thbis policy was intentionally made fluffy (compatred to an earlier version) so that it doesn't really mean anything. THat's why things are like they are. The 'two users complaining' part is what was supposed to compensate. Is this issue outside the scope of that? Backsword 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah sure lol.</sarcasm> Would you please explain to me how in any shape "Mori no Kinoko ni go Youjin" resembles Vili? Or how "Excuse Me Will I Ignore You In Advance" resembles Aba malatu? --SilentStorm 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They all are based on the latin alphabet. They all capitalise the first letter. They all have less than 50 characters. Backsword 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

omg I loled alot... Thats like comparing a flyshit with a Villa and pretend they both resemble the other to some degree as they both consist of Atoms lol... --SilentStorm 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin discretion ownzzz Backsword. People will always find loopholes if you follow the word of the law. Misery 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the proposal. Reading comprehension ftw, eh. Backsword 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin discretion always exists. Interpreting and enforcing policy is kind of their job. When you have wording in a policy that is loosely defined, it is not creating a flexible loophole that people can abuse, it is creating a loophole that you can close when people abuse it. When someone tries to create a disruptive signature by making one that is barely recognisable but "resembles another text string to some degree", you request comments, reach consensus and conclude that it is unacceptable. Most of my signatures in the past have been objected to while being perfectly within the letter of the policy. I requested comments and when consensus was reached that the signature was more annoying than amusing, I changed it. That's how a wiki works Backsword. I think we can agree that Vili and Hala's current signatures do not "resemble their use name to some degree". Enforcing purely the username and the word "talk" stifles creativity and is akin to enforcing no signature images because a few people decided to use horrific but unobscene images or clashing colour combinations. Misery 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be wikilawyering yourself and quibbling over semantics. Would you prefer the wording "The username of a particular user must be able to be easily determined from their signature."? Misery 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At least on some browsers, hovering the mouse over the link shows the link target, making that trivial.      mtew 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're entirely missing the Point there. Sure every common Browser shows the Target of a link but you do not want to tell me that you want to hover each Signature just to know who it really was who wrote a statement do you? The whole Point of Signatures is to easily recognize who wrote something by just reading whats written. And using entirely pointless random Text as signature does NOT even come remotely close to this goal. --SilentStorm 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"request comments, reach consensus and conclude that it is unacceptable" is not admin discretion. It is however what's already in the policy. Niether requires changing current policy. And no, we don't agree on it. It's a factual assertion, and one that all text strings fullfill. To some degree. Backsword 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, I'm sure most people who are being reasonable could agree. Misery 12:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Being rhetorical does not necessarily mean being factually wrong. But nor woukld it be helpful in a real situation. Backsword 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how your comments at the moment are helpful. Yes, most signatures are using the latin alphabet at the moment and as such resemble each other to some degree, but I can't imagine a situation where reasonable people would accept that as a reason for User:Badiator Motoko to use the signature "I dance on graves". I could be wrong, in that situation it would appear that I am in the minority and would abide by community consensus. Misery 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While "reasonable people" only exist in the world of rhetoric, I would agree that most wiki users would think so. Which is why making "some degree" the criteria is a bad idea. Backsword 12:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What? I don't see how those two statments relate. "Most people would come to a conclusion that a signature that is unrecognisable from the username does not resemble the user name to a sufficient degree." followed by "So I think it is a bad idea to leave the decision up to them." Have I misunderstood you? Misery 12:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"some" is quite different from "sufficient". Had the suggestion been for the latter, the question 'sufficient for what?' would have been among the first asked. Which is perhaps why that's not the propsal here. Backsword 12:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, you are responding with an answer to one point each time I say anything and totally ignoring my questions and arguing semantics. You sir, are good at discussion and debate. Misery 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Mtew, that still doesn't make a user easily identifiable. A link should be clear as to where it's going - you shouldn't have to hover over it just to see what the destination is; likewise, a signature shouldn't have to be hovered over to see who that user is.

So, is what I suggested a problem for anyone? I'm not sure I understand Backsword's comments - are you opposed to the opening proposal, my proposal, to changing anything, or are you just philosophising? I'm not seeing a clear link between the issue and your comments. A clarification would be appreciated. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Same here. Backsword whats your exact Problem with the Opening Proposal? Is it (as I think) the "To some degree" Part? That could be easily removed and it could just be "Your Signature must be easily identifiable as your Username." tho I bet you'll now come up with Questions like "Whats easy" etc. Another Idea would be to just make it "Your Signature must include your Username." Together with the First point of the Proposal this would be ok I think. --SilentStorm 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider other empty phrases that just lead to wikilawyering a bad thing too. Surprise surprise. And while including the full usernam would be clear, it would be rule that I don't think have community support. Backsword 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only saying that the phrasing of the alternative proposal left something to be desired.  I am also slightly worried about trolls, obnoxious WIKIlawyers, and power mad sysops (which is NOT currently a problem at this site).  There should be a reasonably strong consensus that the signature is being abused before action is taken.  I think we can agree that the longer examples are abusive.  What I worry about is stuff that is boarder-line disrespectful and mild prude baiting.  I'm inclined to let that kind of stuff pass.      mtew 16:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like anything that proposes signatures "must include the user name". Some people come up with overly long user names so end up using short forms like Why are we fighting or whatsisname using Why. Misery 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a signature doesn't have to include the whole username verbatim to indicate who is signing. As long as it's "similar to some degree", it's fine. Individual cases can, of course, be dealt with through discussion if they're disputed - it doesn't have to be tightly locked into policy. If people have an issue with a particular signature, they'd ask the user to change it and explain why. Changing that one line in the policy isn't to make anything stricter - it doesn't even change current practice. A molehill's been made into a mountain - the event that spurred on this discussion was a comment that having a signature resembling a username isn't a requirement of policy, so it shouldn't be stated as such - whether it is a good idea or not wasn't an issue in that initial comment. Removing the "while this isn't an absolute requirement" part will sort this whole thing out, in my opinion. As I said, this isn't a major issue. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In case I've been unclear, /agree with Brains. Misery 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In case I've been unclear, I never intended to disallow shorter Signatures. Thus the You may shorten your Username Part. Why's Sig is just fine as are most others too. All I want to archieve is to make the Policy sound clear and actually require to use the Username as Signature... at least to a certain degree as Brains said. Tho certain Users seem to have a Problem with that part and / or are bitching around about that Paragraph. --SilentStorm 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I personally have no problem with the way the policy is now. I believe that if a signature is so annoying to anyone to be a problem, using the non-disruptive requirement is adequate leverage to get them to change it with a fairly simple request. The only issue I've had with the policy as it currently stands, is explaining to people that the username is not in fact a requirement. -- Wyn 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the change proposed by Brains. IMO, if by looking at a signature we cannot know who that signature belongs to, then said signature has to be changed. Brains' idea solves this without making the policy as strict as it was. Erasculio 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represent" part to something like "A signature should resemble the user name it represents", which I think is what Brains is suggesting. --Kakarot 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said earlier already I just want to disallow fantasy Signatures not having anything to do with the actual Username. If we can agree that "A signature must resemble the username it represents" disallow such signatures Im fine with that. --SilentStorm 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are now multiple proposals being discussed and people are talking about different things at different indents. Could the proponents of change start a new subsection with an updated proposal to ensure that everyone is on the same page?

Also, just for the benefit of newer users, this policy is at it is now because the previous strict username requirement was also constantly being ranted on. This policy is sort of a "if you don't like a signature someone made, do complain about it so some discussion can be started for that specific case. At least, that's how I look at it. -- ab.er.rant 02:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Currently people rage at people who have signatures that do not correspond to their user name saying they must change it due to this policy, when the policy actually just says that is common practice.

Solutions

1. People stop saying it's against policy but just advise them to change it as it makes them easier to contact
2. Change the policy wording from "It is common practice" to "It must"

Clear? Misery 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought some/most of us were decided on just removing "While it is not an absolute requirement". I don't think "must" was popular. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Brains' idea. It would allow us to enforce this policy in those cases in which users are abusing it. Erasculio 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind removing that "not an absolute requirement" part. I'm against using "must". That previously spawned off a whole new set of rants, such as what exactly constitutes "resemble". -- ab.er.rant 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What Brains and Aberrant said. --Xeeron 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (Signature Image Size)

I would like bring up a subject previously discussed by other people since it seems the subject was never really brought to a conclusion. Why must signature icons be a square 19x19px. After reading through the archives I have noted that more than one person has wanted to make the same changes I am proposing.

Current Policy

The current policy for signatures and icons states the following...

"A signature identifies you and your contributions to Guild Wars Wiki. It is a reference by which other users recognize and give attribution to you as a user, which incidentally encourages civility in discussions."

"Your signature is what identifies you as a user"

"A small image or icon may be included in your signature. "

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

"Be sparing with the use of colors, especially background colors. Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page."

And because I will be bringing it up later in this post... The current policy on User Pages states...

"Registered users in the official Guild Wars Wiki may create user pages to introduce themselves to and communicate with the community. User pages help in organizing editorial tasks and foster community spirit and camaraderie."

Requested Change

The only changes I wish to make are

"The image used is constrained to a maximum height of 19 pixels and a maximum width of 100 pixels to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability."

or

"The image used is constrained to a maximum height and width to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability. Suggested maximum size for signature icons is 19px x 100px or smaller. If your image is found to be disruptive you will be asked to change it."

and the following should refer to your signature icon as well as the highly formatted text in some peoples signatures...

"Be sparing with the use of colors, especially background colors. Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page."

Reasoning behind Change

Many of us would like to customize their signature and change the fonts/colors to be a little more unique and to have the ability to express ourselves with each and every change we sign our name to. Not everyone has every font face installed and many of us would like to have the opportunity to be more unique in our signature by using some exotic font faces that some people may not have. Not everyone wants to download and the consequently re-upload the same icon image as is already on the server. The change I am proposing is not meant to break the current rule. Only to improve upon it as it has already been improved upon before when signature icons were added as a luxury. Icons are used to distinguish one thing from another. We distinguish ourselves from each other every day in our desire for individuality. This change is recognized by the wiki community and rules about signatures have changed in the past to reflect this desire.

"Spirit of the Law" vs "Letter of the Law"

Many times in court a judge will have to make decisions based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law due to the fact that sometimes the letter of the law contradicts common sense in a particular case. He or she may even instruct the jury to keep that thought in mind when determining the outcome of the case being presented. With that said...

The letter of the law is really simple. 19px by 19px and that is all you are allowed.

The spirit of the signature rules are to allow each user to identify him or herself in a unique way which is readily recognizable to all others (which incidentally encourages civility in discussionsquote from signature policy page). The signatures are only used on talk pages which means that each contribution must be attributed to its creator even if it's creator does not own his or her work. Signatures have evolved to be a part of our identity and thus a way for people to easily and readily identify each other while at the same time being able to express our creativity. This is proven by...

• A statement made by Auntmousie in a previous iteration of this arguement... "if you want nothing more than unequivocal identification of a post's source, then policy should be "default signatures only". Anything else is, in effect, an invitation to self-expression"
• Policy Change is an invitation to self expression! After reading through the archives on this subject it was once stated that this wiki at one point had zero signature icons and each signature was little more than text only with no links. The simple fact that this rule changed implies that the "default signatures only" rule was outdated due to the users' desire to show their self-expression. Thus proving my point.

Stated in the User Page Policy "User pages help in organizing editorial tasks and foster community spirit and camaraderie" which means...

• Your signature is a link to your identity and your user page.
• Your user page is a snapshot of your identity.
• Sharing your identity helps to foster community spirit and camaraderie.
• Having a unique signature makes it easy to identify contributions made on talk pages.

Contradictions

People like me who legitamitely want to use a properly sized(so as to not cause a page break or alter line spacing) and formated image as their sig icon are not allowed to do so, yet many people who use this wiki have signatures that take up more room on a page and are much more visually outstanding than my proposed new limit on signature icons could incur.

For example... A few signatures that I have copied and pasted from around the wiki here. I will include my own proposed image to prove my point that my image size is no different than the font changes that many people make on their signature. In additon I will include a worst case (not counting color combinations.

--SilentStorm -- Brains12 \ talk -- ab.er.rant --Kakarot - Y0_ich_halt --Shadowphoenix ~PheNaxKian Talk

Testing Proof...

The following is a few lines of text showing that my icon does not damage line spacing. This <~~ Is an image that is 19px by 100px long. It's length doesn't appear to be a factor in this paragraph. Its Color and Height are. In the last sentence the words color and height are only changed by font commands. From this point on all I am typing is giberish to fill the screen with enough words to have more than one line for comparison. I don't know if this is enough but I suppose I will stop typing and insert my logo and some examples somewhere.

Of course... My image does not match the icon requirements exactly. I resized it down to 40px wide so the height was acceptable. As you can see my image makes no more difference to visual line spacing than changing background colors can unless you were to use my worst case scenario in which the harsh black and white letters stand out very clearly... but still do not change line spacing enough to be notable.

Conclusion

Give us a little bit more elbow room to work with when we are designing our signatures and make things fair for people that want to customize their signature with more than a tiny square and some poorly colored and choosen fonts or take away our rights to individuality all together by reducing us to a name on an account and a time stamp so nobody can complain about the fact that one guy can use font commands to make his signature highly recognizable but others are not allowed to use a small image that takes up less space and sometimes less code.

Give me death or give me liberty... j/k its not that severe.

Elric talk 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses

My concerns with this would be in regards to the current policy requirement :"You must at least include a link to either your user page or your talk page." Using an image only as your signature would violate this clause, as a redirect is not properly a link, and has also proven to be unreliable each time the wiki has been upgraded. The purpose of the link requirement is to make it easy for other users to contact you should they wish to. Also, your request to make the image 100px long, while it may seem reasonable to you now, in 6 months there will be someone that wants to make it 125px long... and then 150px long... where does it end? I believe the current policy requiring a signature to be text with the option of a single small image is much more practical, and less problematic as well as easier to enforce. -- Wyn 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wynthyst. I think the current policy already allows for a degree of individuality while keeping the signatures not only as a way of self expression, but also as a tool for other users to contact the owner of the signature. Erasculio 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowballing is bad. We already achieved a seemingly ideal policy a few sections up. Let's implement it and see how it works. If people really have problems with it, then we can discuss another round of changes some time down the road. calor (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would just make things harder to change, if necessary, later on. Usually, policy changes are accepted once they're accepted, not tested as a trial. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We have it as right as it seems as we're going to get it, at least in my mind. Hence the "really have problems". We've gotten as much consensus as anyone could hope for, so shouldn't we be implementing as is? calor (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's this consensus for implementation? I'm not seeing any support... -- Brains12 \ talk 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea but too many seem against it. It doesn't have to be disruptive and if Wyn really thinks there'd be a problem in the future saying "PEEPS WANT IT BIGGAR", then don't let them. Give this a cap and leave it. I don't see the problem.-- anguard 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not particularly fond of that slippery slope argument, 19x19 was the original cap. I think it was the compromise between no images at all and GuildWiki-size images (which is ~50x19px). You could use your same argument for future 'problems' for this discussion. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Original", yes. No room for change?-- anguard 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, although it does provide an example of what we might see in future if people want to enlarge the cap even more. "then don't let them. Give this a cap and leave it" - my point was that 19x19 is the cap now, so one could use your own argument to refuse and "don't let" this enlargement occur, and "leave" this cap. Are you not seeing the contradictions between your refusal to allow future enlargement and your comment about no room for change, and subsequently how "[not] letting them" would never work? -- Brains12 \ talk 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Thank you every one for responding... let me say something about each response.

• Wyn ~ I never said I wanted to get rid of the text link to your talk page requirement. In regards to the snowballing size of sig icons there is a reasonable limit that we must always follow and that is dictated by how it looks on the screen, the slippery slope areguement is the same as the "sky is falling" arguement. Just because you make a change doesn't dictate a sliding slope of demands in change. The 19px width was an arbitrary choice because the[[image:sample-signature-icon.png|19px]] command defines the width not the height and it is just much easier to say that the width must be 19px because the |19px command measures the images width. There is also no set limit on signature length either. So, theoretically I could push the limit of decency on size with background formating and long text strings alone. Lengthening the size limitations for signature icons is not the path to hell.
• Erasculio - I don't think you are correct or there wouldn't be people like me who want to change this size restriction. Your statement is also one coming from someone who has no icon in his sgnature so there really is no suprise that you say nay.
• calor - I am not sure.. are you voting for me or against me with your statement.
• Vanguard - If Wyn says??? If wyn says that farts should smell like flowers you going to start shoving roses up your behind? Are you a follower or a leader? I'd like to think of myself as a leader and this seems to be a cause worth championing for since the rules have already bent themselves to our will. I believe they should continue to do so since this whole wiki really is about us as the players in the first place. This isn't a wiki about sports, or dictionary definitions. This is a place where we were meant to share our individuality and our knowledge of the game. Meant to share our creativity and our personalities (even if some of us have more than others)
• Brains - to be accurate the original cap was zero signature icons in the first place, so to say that the cap was originally 19 so it should always stay 19 is like me saying the original cap was pure text signatures with no icons and we should go back to that or expand the current limit due to demand. Not every one has seen my plea yet... Is the door going to be shut on this after only one day? After only a few hours... You aren't seeing concensus? Is there a reason you want the door shut on this so quickly? Elric talk 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a basic guideline of 200 characters in length of text and markup, while not a hard set requirement, is still a figure we base any comments/warnings/change requests on. I also don't believe that the 19x19 size was arbitrary as you can do height and width with wikicode, rather it was decided that a square image was adequate as a unique representation of the user. -- Wyn 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wyn is a well known and well respected user here, unlike you, as no one really knows a damn thing about you other than the massive essay you just vomited on this talk page. Also, you then proceed to fall prey to logical fallacies yourself, as the discussion at had has nothing to do with farts, except perhaps the odiousness of your arguments. Also, this wiki is about a game and does serve a function. If you wish to express your individuality, try myspace. Your argument about the origional image cap being zero is another prime example of the slippery slope fallacy, which you profess to so despise. And yes, 'the door' on this does need to be 'shut quickly,' as so far, many have opposed it and none outside of you have professed real support, and open policy issues tend to fester and become wiki-disrupting drama. Lord Belar 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I said thinks*, not says. Damn. -- anguard 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we do this in a more organized fashion? (fill in as needed)

Why this may be a good suggestion

• Allows for more individuality
• Not too much bigger than what current policy says
• Still doesn't disrupt spacing.
• ...

Why this may not be a good suggestion

• We all ready are allowed a good extent of individuality.
• What's to stop a proposal for even bigger sig images?
• ...

--Riddle 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's... totally and completely not what I was saying.

My response was to Vanguard's comments about the hypothetical situation of setting another cap and refusing other requests if it becomes a problem in future that people want to continue enlargements. It wasn't a comment of support or opposition to the proposal - I was trying to explain that one could, hypothetically, say 19x19 is the cap that no one should allow an enlargement of if we were to follow Vanguard's argument.

My comment about not seeing consensus was in response to Calor who said there was clear consensus. That doesn't mean I oppose the proposal, nor does it mean I want to shut this proposal down. It means I see no consensus yet, a disagreement with Calor's comment that "We've gotten as much consensus as anyone could hope for". That doesn't mean there won't be consensus - it just means there isn't. After all, I can only see the present, and at the present it happens to be that there isn't a consensus.

"If wyn says that farts should smell like flowers you going to start shoving roses up your behind?". Wyn's opinion happens to be quite important, actually. Why? Because she's a member of the community giving her input in a discussion. If Wyn has an issue with something, does that have to be disregarded because "i'm a leader lol"?

"To share our individuality" is not the point of a signature - it's not supposed to be artwork, or a pictorial representation of one's personality or knowledge of the game. It's primarily for identification and linking to a userpage or talk page, with the userpage being the representation of one's personality or knowledge. The only sense of individuality a signature should contain is that of difference to other signatures, but I think you mean individuality as portrayal of personality.

By the by, fewer fallacies in your comments would make for nicer reading.

However, to provide my point of view in the proposal itself, I prefer the 19x19 limit for reasons beaten to death in previous discussions. it's not a strong opinion, but it is a preference to that of wider images nonetheless. I do, however, feel that 100px is too wide - that's double GuildWiki's limit, and various people have a problem with that already. If the limit is to get bigger, I'd prefer nothing more than 50px. -- Brains12 \ talk 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Too... much... sense... Sorry, Eloc Elric... He's got a better arguement.-- anguard 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Elric instead of Eloc? -- Brains12 \ talk 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call.-- anguard 02:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken no offense to anything Elric said, and Belar, you have no need to either defend me, or berate Elric and belittle his proposal. His contributions to this wiki and his opinions are just as important as mine, or yours. -- Wyn 02:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LORD BELAR I have made no personal attacks in any of this yet you want to start with some by describing my request as vomit. I dont think I really care what you have to say and I will remind you to stick to facts when responding to a situation like this. So NPA or STFU because a statement like yours defining my hard work as vomit can very easily be considered a personal attack. My request was based on prior demands and my own personal desires. And yes you are right. This wiki is about a game and it does serve a purpose. It is also hosted by the people that designed the game for the people that play the game. I never professed to despise the slipery slope policy another bad point on your part. To be correct, I said that there is NOT a sliperry slope effect. so stop with your nay saying just because its the popular opinion stated by people who are "well known and well respected" because "well known and well respected" doesn't always mean that the person is correct 100% of the time. Look at the current policy. IT has evolved from what it originally was to what it is today. Change sometimes comes from unpopular opinions that gain light of day and become popular.

My statement to Vanguard was an expression of my frustration with people "just going along" with what the popular and well known people desire. But if this is getting zero support and I am the only person sounding a horn then I will STFU myself and be happy with the size. This doesn't have to be wiki drama. I just want to know that it was given an honest minutes thought before the door was closed and that the reason it wasn't changed was because of legitimate reasons not chicken little's "the sky is going to fall if you do that" reasoning.

Brains - I'd appreciate it if you remind Lord Belar of the NPA policy. I also understand Wyn's position. I do appreciate her status in the community. I was simply referring to a common mistake many people make of just jumping on board a ship because someone popular is also on board. What fallacies are you referring too?

Regarding the 19x50 vs 19x100 arguement... 50px is too small and if you implement that short of a sig icon as I am suggesting then you WILL eventually have someone trying to increase it and then you WILL end up with a snowball effect. 100 pix should be enough for anyone to put the first name of their character or something else to identify themselves. Elric talk 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up quite yet Elric, this has only been here for a couple of hours. Policy change often takes weeks or months of discussion. There are others out there who have previously requested this change, give them a chance to add their opinions. -- Wyn 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

50px is more than twice the allotted width here, and we have been quite happy with that for almost three years on GuildWiki. Most users are below the limit anyway. Recently, someone made a proposal to allow for wider images, and I'd like to repeat here a rebuttal I wrote in response to that:

"If you take signatures [which graphically represent the username and redirects to their userpage], that is a case where using an image reduces wikitext. However that does bring up the point that images themselves don't do that - it all depends on what they are used for. If a sig image is your username, and you use it to redirect to your page or something, then that reduced markup. But if you just include it as an accessory as a lot of people do, then it only adds to signature length. So, if we were to allow a wider limit based on those grounds, we would also have to force people to format their signatures in a specific way in order to meet that justification. Which is problematic because it just creates another arbitrary standard. Pyre Fierceshot says: don't exchange one set of shackles for another."

Wyn also notes how redirecting like that does not work too well on this wiki, anyway, which negates any possible advantage anyway.

Having said all that, I'd of course love to be able to have a bigger signature, because 19x19 felt really cramped when I came here. But I realize that different wikis are different and slippery slopes are slippery. The signature policy is pretty much fine the way it is for GWW; as others have repeated above, the wiki's purpose is for documenting the game, not to be MyGuildWarsWikiSpace. There are plenty of ways to "express your individuality" and "foster community spirit" etc. which wouldn't involve adjusting policies. Vili 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the reason the policy shouldn't be changed is because of the "bad people" that would abuse its intention and not because the idea in itself it is technically unsound. I am starting to see all the arguements against this policy change all point to human nature and not any specific technical data. I don't see anyone standing up and saying that the proposed change would make any more than a visual change to people's signature.

It's been noted here... on the page we happen to be discussing & in my proposal by the way... that "A signature identifies you and your contributions to Guild Wars Wiki. It is a reference by which other users recognize and give attribution to you as a user, which incidentally encourages civility in discussions."

• Let's think about the spirit of that law.. "a reference by which other users recognize and give attribution to you as a user" What is wrong with me and a few others wanting to expand the space we have available to make our signatures easily recognizable when there is no real technology reason behind not making such a change.

Current policy also states "Be sparing with the use of colors, especially background colors. Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page." You will notice that this sentence does not clearly define which colors can or can not be used. The interpretation is left up to us users as we can easily request a change if it turns out to be too much.

• "Avoid using bright and glaring colors that disrupts the readability of a text page." - While not a hard and stead fast rule it applies itself very easily as I have been to more than one user page with a request from Wyn, Brains, or many of the other people responsible for keeping wiki running smoothly, asking someone to please tone down their signature. Why can this rule be applied to text but not to an image.

The same concept applies. Why do we have to restrict our signature images to 19px by 19px when an image that is 19px tall and any undetermined length less than one quarter of the average screen width makes no more visual break in the page than some of the example signatures I included in my proposal.

My Worst Case scenario image is 100px long and is not any longer than some of the existing text signatures with the approved 19x19 icon. Please see my example above in contradictions. The image is exactly 19pixels tall which is within limits and is exactly 100 pixels long yet signatures like Silent Storm, Y0, and others are approximately the same length. So I'd like someone to explain to me the difference between an image of your name with a link to your talk page after it that is a total of approximately 100pixels or so and a signature with formated text and a 19x19 square icon that is approximately 100pixels or so.

Which brings me to formatting and its effect on the wiki (technical stuff but I'll talk slowly). First here are the signatures that I used above in my Contradictions(with wiki code turned off). Please note how long these signatures are in reality versus the actual rule listed in the policy.

--''[[User:SilentStorm|<span style="color:limegreen; font-weight:bold;">Silent</span>]][[User_Talk:SilentStorm|<span style="color:limegreen; font-weight:bold;">Storm</span>]]'' [[Image:User SilentStorm MySig.png|Talk to me|19px]]	-220 characters	--SilentStorm
--<span style="font-size:95%;white-space:nowrap;">[[Image:User Brains12 circle sig.png|18px|]] [[User:Brains12|Brains12]] \ [[User talk:Brains12#1|talk]] </span>	-162 characters	-- Brains12 \ talk
-- [[User:Ab.er.rant|ab.er]].[[User talk:Ab.er.rant|<span style="font-variant: small-caps">rant</span>]] [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]]	-141 characters	-- ab.er.rant
--[[User:Kakarot|<font color="black">'''Kakarot'''</font>]] [[Image:User Kakarot Sig.gif|Talk]]	-91 characters	--Kakarot
- [[User:Yo|<tt>Y0_<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:kartika;font-size:130%">ich_halt</span></tt>]] [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px]]	155 characters	- Y0_ich_halt
--[[User:Shadowphoenix|''<span e="color:black; font-family:Bell MT; ">Shadowphoenix</span>'']] [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|<span style="font-family:Matisse ITC;">Happy Halloween</span>]]	-201 characters	--Shadowphoenix
<span style="font-family: comic sans ms; font-size: 10pt;"><B>[[User:PheNaxKian|<font color="#4F94CD">~PheNaxKian</font>]] [[Image:User_PheNaxKian_sig.jpg|19px]] [[User talk:PheNaxKian|<font color="#9400D3">Talk</font>]]</B></span>	-240 characters	~PheNaxKian Talk
[[Image:User Elric Coy Elric-sig-icon3.png|40px|My Talk]] [[User talk:Elric_Coy|talk]]	-86 characters	talk
[[Image:User Elric Coy Worst case.png]]	example

• please note i did not set the width of the colums in the above table. The width was actually set by Y0's signature which is much longer than the proposed 100px limit. In fact even the proposed worst case scenario is shorter than most other signatures including Brains who is a Sysop.

Paste from the signature policy again "Signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window unnecessarily clutter the edit window and make it more difficult to distinguish meaningful comments from the signatures." Each one of these signatures above takes up more than one line in my edit window. Shouldn't each of them be forced to make a change to rectify it? Of course not, and that is because their signature is acceptable visually even though it breaks current policy. My signature with my icon would be no larger in size in an edit window(especially if I didn't have to load my image onto wiki with such a long name)

We don't think about it but every time we hit that tilde key four times we are plopping down 100-200 characters in some one else's edit window. We don't have to look at it. We know what it says and we know what we typed, but its still more than one line of text in an edit window and sometimes... as shown above more than 200 characters which is past the current policy.

To prevent further snow ball type arguments perhaps the rule should be that the size can be no more than 19 pixels tall(since line spacing is the real heart of the signature icon size rule) and of reasonable length as to not cause visual disruption when reading talk pages. Why not.. The rule seems to be good enough to be applied to text formatting even though its not a hard yes/no or an exact measurement of say... 50px, 100px, or more.

Why this may be a good suggestion

• Allows for more individuality
• Not any taller than what current policy says
• Still doesn't disrupt spacing
• Can reduce the length of signatures in the edit window by removing long text formatting codes.
• ...

Why this may not be a good suggestion

• We all ready are allowed a good extent of individuality.
• People will abuse the rule due to human nature.
• What's to stop a proposal for even bigger sig images? the words within reasonable limits will stop it.
• ...

So far its four to two for the proposal as far as legitimate arguments are concerned. Elric talk 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--shameless self crediting-- I added the "Doesn't disrupt spacing" one :D -- anguard 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can reduce the length of signatures in the edit window by removing long text formatting codes.

• Perhaps with the Elric one and not the Worst Case one, since, quoted from Wyn, " 'You must at least include a link to either your user page or your talk page.' Using an image only as your signature would violate this clause, as a redirect is not properly a link, and has also proven to be unreliable each time the wiki has been upgraded." I do believe you need a direct link to either your userpage or usertalk; simply redirecting won't work

"the words within reasonable limits will stop it."

• What you define as reasonable is not necessarily what User:John Doe defines as reasonable. For example: You find 100px reasonable, a few others find 50px reasonable, etc. --Riddle 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The worst case image was just an example for how big 19px by 100px actually is. Not an actual example of a real signature. And within reasonable limits is good enough in regards to what colors are acceptable in a signature why can it not be acceptable for an image? Sure it can be subjective but sysops would always have final say when a user's sig icon was obviously distracting because of it's length just like long signatures and bold colors get changed because they are pushing the limits of acceptability. It's not like the world will come crashing down because there is softer and flexible limit on size instead of a hard and stead fast one. Yes, I understand that the human nature factor will cause some sysops more work because as soon as this were made a public policy change there will most likely be peeople that will forget decency or not have the same feelings about it as the rest of us. But do the bad apples have to ruin it for us who just want a little more room for creativity and expression in our attempt to make our signature "recognizable" as was the original reason that sig icons were added in the first place. Elric talk 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My largest objection to this change is the added enforcement requirements, making it just that much pickier. Having a small image restriction is pretty easy to enforce. Making it longer then means checking on more images, and then there will be those that say... 100px... 110px.. what's the big deal? I don't like the idea of talk pages getting filled with large (in comparison to current) images. I believe it will detract from the content of the talk page. It's the same reason we don't allow animated signature images. -- Wyn 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we back here again really?

In the United States we have a quirky little thing called the Electoral College. For benefit of anyone who hasn't taken Civics 10: the Electoral College is 538 people, chosen indirectly by the voters, who in turn decide who will be president. Put simply, only 538 people actually voted on whether Obama or McCain would be America's president; the rest of us cast a more or less symbolic vote expressing our preference for who should join the electoral college.

I mention this not because it is directly relevant to this issue, but because it is an example of how the status quo is hard to change. We all know the Electoral College is fundamentally a stupid idea - but due to the nature of the process for amending our Constitution, it is all but unthinkable that we'll ever get rid of it. As it stands now, "small" states (population-wise) have a disproportionate amount of power, and frankly they like it that way; you'd never get them to agree to a change. So long as 25%+ of states fall into this category, the other not-quite-75% won't be able to abolish the system. And every so often, the winner of the national "popular vote" loses the election - because in effect there is no such thing.

The image policy is an Electoral College. It has little if any genuine merit to it; it is a compromise between those who want no graphics and those who want more graphics. We all acknowledge that it isn't the only possible compromise. But in the end, the argument that always seems to carry the day is: "We already have this. It's not that bad, and there's no way we'll all agree on something else. Just leave it alone."

Concensus makes this a cogent argument - which is, essentially, why concensus isn't used to run any major organization. Still, even here, it shows (to my thinking) a singular lack of creativity.

We already have loose rules on total width, which are enforced more or less by concensus. It works. This should serve as proof that a loose (or at least, looser) rule on image width should also work.

If we're not sure, why not set up a trial policy? I know, I know, concensus and stuff. So try on this language:

This is a Trial Policy.

This policy will be discussed for thirty days beginning on (day X). If it can be agreed by concensus that it is worth a try, then it will be in effect for ninety days - from (day X+30) to (day X+120). At 12:00am Pacific time on (day X+121) the policy will expire and further discussion will ensue on whether or not it worked.

Seriously, is there some reason we can't do that?

The current rule exists because there was concensus. The very fact that this has repeatedly come up for debate argues (and may even prove) that there is not currently a concensus of support for the policy. Although that doesn't automatically render the policy invalid, it should at least behoove us to try and find something with broader support. And let's face it, my sig pic needs a better tail. (AUNTMOUSIE) 08:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that wikis aren't the united states, when was the last time you saw a law passed to "try it out?" Oh, right, that doesn't happen in real life either. -Auron 08:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually a great many laws passed in the USA have built-in expiration dates. Ask your accountant about the Estate Tax. (AUNTMOUSIE) 08:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's still not the same as trial laws, and it *still* has nothing to do with how wikis run. -Auron 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We discuss until we reach consensus, and then we change, or not. That is how it works on the wiki. -- Wyn 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So I take Aunt Mousie's interaction here as more support for a consensus and still no valid technical reasons as to why this can not be implemented. And legally Mousie is right. There are known laws on the books with built in expiration dates. Don't make me call my lawyer to quote you a couple hundred of them. *shakes finger at everyone Elric talk 08:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, if you'll look carefully at the above, the trial proposal follows your model exactly. The 'trial period' would only commence if a concensus was reached as to its being worth a try. The idea is that the automatic reversion would calm the nerves of those who are afraid of being unable to reverse a bad policy; meanwhile, the 90-day trial is enough time that those who think it can work can be proven right or wrong. And then, at the end of the ninety days, more discussion. How is that not part of a concensus model?

The thing is, to say "we have concensus on this, let's just leave it alone" is to quash debate. By my lights, one of the fundamental concepts of a wiki is that open discussion is good.

Personally, I would love to see this issue put more or less permanently to bed - whether it goes the way I want it to, or not. A trial period might be a way to do that. At the end of it, if it gets abused like crazy, you could say "hey, man, we tried it. It didn't work." You could even say "I told you so." I'd even agree. (AUNTMOUSIE) 08:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What would happen is the trial period would never end (and if by some wild chance it did, trying to enforce a rollback would be a nightmare). Let's just leave this idea, and work on gaining consensus for permanent changes. I think that's a much more constructive use of our time. -- Wyn 09:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I don't actually mind when people disagree with me. But when people point to the blue sky and tell me it's purple, that gets under my skin just a little. The trial period WOULD end, AT THE SPECIFIED TIME. 12:00am Pacific on day X+121. Anything with a later timestamp would be against policy. Now, if you don't agree with the trial period idea, that's fine ... just say that. Disagree with me if you want to, but at least do me the dignity of assuming that the rules of the suggestion would be followed. (AUNTMOUSIE) 09:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mousie. I understand that you are well respected due to your contributions to the wiki Wyn, but to state that "What would happen is the trial period would never end" is completely unfair and not a legitimate argument against a possible temporary solution since, as Mousie so elegantly put it, "there is not currently a consensus on what the rules should be" (regarding the length of a signature icon). No offense but so far every argument against my proposal including Wyn's has named the human nature factor as the only real reason why we can't make the policy change and no real technical opposition as to why this can not be done or why a text signature can be longer than the proposed signature icon and still be acceptable but a sig icon that is around 100px or so is too much for people to accept. Elric talk 09:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yours is hardly a "technical reason" - the reason you're wanting wider images is for "individuality" and creativity. Allowing wider image doesn't mean the length of markup will magically decrease - as Vili said, some people use their image as an accessory, and we would require a link as well as any image. What's more important than the length of markup is the length when viewing the page itself, and wider images have more of a distracting effect than text. "Human nature", as you call it, isn't something to be disregarded; we're all humans here, and policy includes aspects of human nature as well as technicalities. However, an argument for the technical aspect would be longer page loading - take that as you will.

As I said above, trial changes aren't good. Anyway, it still requires the consensus to accept wider images - as you can see, people are opposed to that idea. Not to mention it'll leave behind remnants of the trial (assuming the trial changes aren't accepted after the trial has ended).

Elric, please don't bring up my sysop status here. It really is irrelevant. Sysops aren't expected to have shorter markup and exemplary signatures. Also, disputes about signature should ideally be dealt with through discussion, not sysop decree.

Is there a compromise we could reach? Instead of thinking just of 19px and 100px, why can't we think about 30, or 40, or 50? Going from 19 to 100 is a big jump. You also have to take into account that these signatures should contain links too, so most of these images are only going to be accessories. Shall we take a small step instead? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to use the cliche argument, but the wiki isn't exactly a prime place for "creativity and individuality". Do I complain to my pastor that the church parking lot isn't big enough to play stickball in? Well, yes, but should I? Of course not. The primary and only important function of the parking lot is to have a place near the church where people can leave their cars without fear of them being stolen or crashed into. The wiki, like the parking lot, has a primary and sole important function, which is documenting the game. The stickball, in this case individuality and creativity, can be carried out more practically in other places, like the park across the street, or Photoshop or another website in this case. Sure there are other peripheral functions which are greatly secondary to the primary function of documenting the game, like communicating directly with Anet staff members. But individuality and creativity are not in the list of secondary reasons, and, at least in my opinion, don't have much of a place on the wiki. calor (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Brains, I never claimed my reason for wanting this is a technical reason. I am simply stating that there is no legitimate technical reason other than the human factor stopping this proposal. The human nature factor is always present. Which is why I still see you caution ppl about their signatures even with the current standards so what makes you think anything would change just because people were given a little leg room? I did do some research and I have seen more than a couple of your messages on other peoples pages asking them to tone down their signature under the current rules.

People are always going to be humans. The decency rules will always apply as they do to colors and background now. There is no difference between my request and the current text formatting policy except that under my proposal you would have more room for creativity and if you create something that is too loud you will get asked to change it or it will be changed for you just like it is currently. And no the markup won't magically decrease. I didn't say it would magically decrease. This is a wiki about fantasy but I am not trying to feed you a fantasy. I was stating that some people's sig would get significantly shorter. Most probably since all that markup is just for formatting the text and all the formatting would be moved into an image file and linked to instead of that 100+ characters of code is dropped on the page every single time you say boo. And BTW since you are a sysop you should know that page loading is a bull crap answer to the technical issue since we both know there is a wonderful thing call cache which most if not all users have... I think... *scratches head

While I am very happy and am kinda jumping up and down with you saying 50px is ok and that you would support that change. I know that if you make it that short there will be the eventual snow ball effect that you are talking about. Some one will eventually use the arguement that 19px wasn't enough and neither is 50 since their name is longer than mine. I can fit mine into 50px. You can fit yours into 50px. But what about Shadowphoenix? Do you think his name could reasonably fit within 50 pixels and still be readable and recognizable? I thought ahead and solved that issue on my own. Make the limit flexible just like the color, size, and font limits are all flexible. 19px MAX height, and a "reasonable" length that does not break the page or line spacing.

7 people against (who have historically always been against this anyways) and three people for this proposal and even a wavering sysop who is saying he "might" be in favor if the limit was 30, 40, or 50. So that is actually 6 people against and 3 for with 1 maybe and a WHOLE wiki full of editors who may not have even seen this conversation yet. Stop trying to close the doors Brains. Your statements are starting to sound like summary decisions before the whole jury has even heard all the facts. Please stop saying that I am not getting support. SOME people are opposed to the idea.

And yes I will bring you up as a sysop. As a person who weilds power (even if only digital) you should be a respectable, fair, and non-judgemental person. Other wise you are just another a-hole with authority which is not what I think you are. I brought up your signature not because I want to win the conversation. I was just using you as a comparision. As one who helped write and enforce the rules we as users would expect you to also follow the rules. Since everyone loves analogies... Police officers are put in jail just like criminals when they break the law.

Calor, I have to stand here and argue with you about this point. While most wiki's are built specifically for documenting facts. This particular wiki IS ALL ABOUT CREATIVITY and the game which we play. Sure there is a large technical section that "documents" fictional facts about who and what happens in the game mechanics. But there is also a large section called USER PAGES that are purely fictional. i.e. creative.... Your signature is supposed to be a link to your user pagers which are meant to foster community spirits and camaraderie. I don't suppose those actions are always 100% carried out on a 100% factual basis considering we are playing a in a fantasy world... Why is every one so quick to jump onto the "wiki's are factual only" bandwagon??? THIS IS A WIKI ABOUT A GAME. BTW... I don't know what your religion is and I won't insult you by saying you are stupid for your comment but... Actually yes you should ask your pastor as he would be the one to help raise the money to improve the parking lot if he agreed with you by talking to the congregation and trying to get them all to chip in to help the youth in the area of the church. Elric talk 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

one more thing... I do actually agree with the trial policy thing. Implementing and rolling back if it doesn't work would be a headache. we should be able to read a concensus on this before we make it rule. As wyn stated... "We discuss until we reach consensus, and then we change, or not. That is how it works on the wiki." and she also said "Don't give up quite yet Elric, this has only been here for a couple of hours. Policy change often takes weeks or months of discussion. There are others out there who have previously requested this change, give them a chance to add their opinions." Elric talk 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You have little idea what you're talking about and you rant about unrelated bullshit way too much. You need to learn the basics of wikiing before jumping balls-deep in this kind of discussion - ridiculous claims like "As a person who weilds power (even if only digital) you should be a respectable, fair, and non-judgemental person" make it seem like you missed the point of sysophood and how it relates to wiki discussions (which, tbh, you did).

It's nearly impossible to simultaneously teach you how wikis work (i.e., that sysops hold no more weight than any other user in content discussion), correct faulty logic ("Why is every one so quick to jump onto the "wiki's are factual only" bandwagon??? THIS IS A WIKI ABOUT A GAME"), and debunk your argument all at once. You should take care of the first two on your own, and when you've done that, come back so we can debunk your argument :) -Auron 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this right... You are saying that sysops don't have the power to police the wiki and administer bans? Elric talk 17:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sysops don't have the final say when there is a conflict regarding the rules? Elric talk 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a public wiki. Anyone can create an account and start making changes but nobody but an owner of the game would know if the changes they made were true unless that person was only editing for visual appeal. This wiki was designed for and is used by OWNERS of the guild wars game. People who don't own Guild Wars and have no affiliation with ANET will probably never visit this site. Making it a private domain unlike the public wikipedia or any other wiki. No you don't have to explain things to me. You just have to open your mind and not see things in black and white. Spirit of the Law vs Letter of the Law... Like I said... this wiki is documenting facts about a fictional world. It may use the media wiki foundation that other wiki's use but no matter how you slice it... This is a fan site for a game hosted by the designers of the game for the players of the game. User pages were allowed so people can express themselves and to organize their projects. Signature Icons were added at 19x19px because of popular concensus wanted more room in seperating their statements from others. I only want to expand that a little to allow for some creativity. And btw... thank you for saying something to Belar. Elric talk 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What's ArenaNet got to do with this? I think you're misunderstanding what the wiki is - it's not ArenaNet's documentation of their game, and this wiki isn't a "private domain". It's a wiki editable by anyone. It just happens to be hosted by ArenaNet, who really don't play a part in policy.

With your argument that 50px is too small, you're assuming everyone will want such an image, and everyone will want their whole username to fit in it. One could use your own argument against 100px. I still prefer 19px, but I realise that compromises have to be made. I think you should realise that also, because we won't get anywhere going in circles. Consensus isn't about how many numbers are for or against, it's about people agreeing.

One last time, just so it's clearer: I am not trying to close this down and shut doors. My status as a sysop is completely irrelevant. Even if you wish to bring in my sysop status for whatever reason, at least inform yourself about the role. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sysops have the power to police and administer bans yes, but that's not what is being said here. Sysops have no more say in policy discussion than anyone else, other than the fact we tend to be more active about it, as well as have a different viewpoint. My dislike of a 'trial period' stems from my experience as a sysop of then having to go through and find all the people who have increased their sig image, but then not changed it back at the end. That is what I was getting at by saying it would not end. There would be those people who come in during the trial, make a signature post a few things with their large images and then leave, and not replace those images with smaller ones. It would then be up to us (the community, but mostly the sysops) to then change those images as we find them. Plus, spending all the time to reach a consensus for a trial policy change to me feels like a waste. As I said, I think our time would be much better spent trying to reach a permanent change solution.

Elric, Brains pointed to a very sound technical reason to not allow bigger images, load time. Let's look at Linsey's page as an example. Her talk page is over 350k, and has gotten as large as 800k, if everyone who is posting on her page had an image that was 5 times as large as current images that would make a large impact on load time, not to mention the functionality of her page in general as it has difficulties now because of the size. This is not just about the length of the markup. Let's take a look at some other possibilities of what could happen under this change. Here is an example of a possibility, should someone with a very long user name (like Phen) choose to use a 100px image simply as an accessory and still have their username in text as well as a talk page link. Or, the user's wants to create a holiday signature (which many do):

[[Image:User Elric Coy Worst case.png]] [[User:Username is very long|Username is very long]] [[User talk:Username|<small>''talk''</small>]]	Username is very long talk 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
[[Image:User Wynthyst halloween sig.png]] [[User:Username is very long|Username is very long]] [[User talk:Username|<small>''talk''</small>]]	Username is very long talk 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think your black and white image is as you put it, the "Worst case", I can guarantee it's by far not the worst case as far as distracting and disrupting images at 19x100. And what one person finds reasonable, another finds unreasonable. Try to imagine Linsey's page (or any other busy talk page) full of these large images. -- Wyn 18:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You also are nay saying my arguments because they are based on human nature, not technical logic, but on a wiki full of humans, human nature is going to have a lot more impact than technical logic. -- Wyn 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I notice that you pointed out ANET has nothing to do with policy but you had no rebuttal for my statement that this is not a typical wiki. Yes, I know the contributions are from the users. Yes, I know how the wiki works. You can't change the fact that this particular wiki is nothing more than a grouping of facts about a fictional world thus making every fact on this wiki into fiction itself by proxy. This wiki is for the players, by the players, hosted and yes... owned... by the people who made our wonderful game even if they have no actual participation in policy changes or enforcement. This is not a public playground or a library where anyone can write a new book, it is a resource for owners and fans of the game. If anything I want someone to acknowledge that fact since the argument "this is a wiki not a sandbox for creativity" keeps coming up more than once. Even if the words are different the meaning is still the same. I only bring it up because I believe it is very relevant and that particular rebuttal doesn't apply here on a wiki about a video game.

I would be happy with an implementation of 50px, especially since Brains agrees and can see that there is a demand and possibly even a growing consensus even if it is small now. And btw... since the word keeps getting thrown around I thought I'd put the link to its definition up here for people to read... consensus on a real wiki

Wyn - you are right even if I don't want to agree. Human nature will always be a part of these policies. *bows head... However, there are always going to be those few that would ruin it for the majority. Do we give them that control by living in a state of limitations? Whats the point if those people who would ruin it are going to hang themselves whether you change the rules or not.

Perhaps anyone wishing to use a sig icon larger than 19 by 19px would have to go through an approval process before using it. Upload your image into your namespace like normal... create a page within your namespace called User:John_Doe/signature... on that page you would use a template {{subst:signature_approval|image=[[User:John_Doe_sig.jpg]]|signature_text=[[User talk:John_Doe|talk]]}} which would put that page into a category requesting approval, and fill the page with random text, inserting that person's new signature image in several places within the text to "test" for visual breaks. After being reviewed the image could be used as that person's signature. Elric talk 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying this isn't a typical wiki simply because it's based on a game is a bit of a stretch. The facts documented here are no less facts because they deal with a fantasy world, they are still facts based on what is in this game. The users of this wiki expect those facts to be as accurate as users of Wikipedia expect it to be accurate. How this correlates to this particular discussion is a bit besides the point however, as we are talking about signatures on talk pages, not the actual game documentation.

As for an approval process, you are simply adding yet another layer of administration, more hoops for people to jump through, which once again I feel would prove bulky and unmanageable. My feeling remains that increasing the size of the image is unnecessary. -- Wyn 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I give up then. I am being blocked by sysops that don't want to do any more work. That is what I am hearing. Human nature will prove Chicken Little right and cause the sky to fall and then the sysops will have to work harder. I give up. I will just stretch my legs within the existing limits. I don't want this to be a long drawn out wikidrama. I was invited to MENSA at 13 and my logic in this situation is not flawed. It is lateral. It is not my fault if everyone else only thinks in linear terms. Yes some of my statements are a stretch... but thats it.. you acknowledge the fact that I am right in saying they are a stretch instead of saying they are the furthest from the truth. A stretch is still the truth even if it is being stretched so you can see the subject in a different light. The signature icon thing was not important enough to take up this much of my time but I let it because I thought that the simple comparison between the already long and visually outstanding signatures and mine would suffice.

At this point I would like to change bandwagons and request a policy change back to text only signatures since it has been repeatedly pointed out that this is not a place for creativity or recognition. If I can't have my creative freedom that I (and some others) would like to have then nobody should have that creative freedom. Elric talk

Everyone... Thank you for your participation in my further education in bureaucracy. I don't see this going anywhere... For those that believed in my cause, Thank You. For those that oppose it only because its too much work for them, well... I don't know what to say... except the review process didn't HAVE to be done by sysops, it doesn't HAVE to all fall on your shoulders, but thank you for your consideration. I'll go back to my unimportant user pages now. Elric 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points from reading up on all this. 1) A trial period, while a good idea, would require an implementation, an undo, and possibly a re-implementation. Extra work. 2) Having an approval process just seems unwieldy. 3) Wiki concensus, right now, is the status quo since it actually got put into policy. 4) Saying "I can't get my new toy, nobody gets any toys" is rather childish. 5)I personally don't care either way, 19px wide or 50px wide because I don't use an image. --JonTheMon 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as this is an aestetic issue (with other considerations like file size and spacing), "being right" is kinda hard. As is, it seems that the decision was "allow images, but minimum possible size", which seems like a compromise. --JonTheMon 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To you it may seem childish because you don't agree. However, I am not speaking from a teenage hormone point of view. I am 35 and considered by most to be a reasonable and intelligent man. A compromise is just that. It doesn't really satisfy both sides completely. Its just good enough to shut both up until some one like me comes along and says hey... that policy is rather stupid. Why??? Because people can use markup that makes edit a pain it the ass for me when I am looking at two and sometimes three lines of code there for just making someones text pretty. But I am told I am not allowed to achieve the same effect because its more work and more bureaucracy for someone else. If I have to put up with someone elses ugly signature that makes editing a bigger pain in the ass for me then why is it so bad for me to want to be able to clearly see where my comments begin and another persons ends. There are already rules in place that are flexible for this very reason. Your Happy Halloween example could be done with code only... so what is the difference if it is an image or code? What is the real difference?

With all the nays... someone just simply prove the difference between a 19px by 100px icon that uses 80 characters in the edit window and a 19px by 120px or longer signature of pure code that takes up more than twice as much space in the edit window.

And one more point... scroll up... start at the top and slowly work your way down. I want you... yes you... whoever is reading this... to really take a look at the page... Lots of ugly indents... very poor organization of responses... can you clearly and easily tell when one comment ends and another begins. Can EVERYONE??? As I scroll down I see a blurring between comments... even those seperated by the handy little : commands... I see an arguement for even larger signatures to help delineate one comment from another. With all the links, the signatures kinda get lost. Wyn's tiny blue W is just a dot on my screen. Elric 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this is as good as wiki discussion is going to get. Signatures aren't markers or bookends, they're navigation and identification tools. If you're only scanning a page, I don't think anyone can blame you for missing things out. However, if you're reading something, it's pretty clear to see a signature, and where a new comment begins.

There would probably be less walls of text here if there wasn't as much verbosity and points unrelated to the subject. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) With that said... Ugh... Me no use long words to show picture in head no more. Ugh... Me give up, keep things simple. Elric 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The wiki is not designed for discussion, rather for documentation. This has been pointed out and brought up many many times. Also, the breaks in the indentation flow here have mostly been caused by you resetting the indent every other section. I would be careful about throwing stones. As for your repeated insinuations that the sysops don't want this because of the additional work involved, well, duh! Anytime a policy is changed, the amount of work it's going to create for someone HAS to be a consideration. If it's work that actually benefits this wiki as a whole and furthers it's primary purpose of documenting the game, I have no problem with it. If it's work created simply because someone wants to have more artistic expression in their signature, I find it unnecessary. -- Wyn 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ugh... me understand... syssy ops already work to hard. Me think way too hard... Maybe should work less... Ugh... Maybe them not have to deal with signatures at all. be better for all. Elric 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading all this and having lots of things I wanted to say after each X lines, I now forgot nearly everything and really don't want to comment here either.. Just one thing, you said "I am being blocked by sysops that don't want to do any more work."; but you misunderstood that nobody said anything about sysops. The only thing that was being said was that by having "an approval process, you are simply adding yet another layer of administration". Please don't always understand administration = sysops just because the comment comes from a sysop because again: The comments of sysops don't have a bigger weight in discussions, especially not in policy discussions. Sysops are just "janitors" that execute the administrative work. poke | talk 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont care no more. It's too much work to go against dogma. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Elric Coy (talk).

Wyn mentioned that my dumbing down my comments was insulting. To those I insulted I apologize. It was not done due to lack of support. It was in reaction to being accused of being too verbose. It may be a character flaw to some but I am who I am and I type fast. To those that accused me of being too verbose, I could consider that a personal attack and wish to remind you of the GWW:NPA policy. I would apologize further but I've said enough so far. Due to the responses I've read so far this is not likely to change any time soon and I understand why even if it doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't follow any reasonable line of logic that in code vs image the image is the bad guy just because its an image. You still have to deal with human nature and the tendency of some to push the limits. With that said... Elric 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to change the signature policy. Why? For starters not having a wide/large image isn't going to hurt anyone. If you want a large image, that's what a sub page on your userpage is for. Secondly if people want to have a wide/large image then why not have animated images? There disruptive, 19x19px is just fine. Lastly you can always change the font color like most of us do, instead of a image because its more simpler. After all this isn't a contest of who wants the largest sig image. Smaller is better, and helps the pages load faster (larger images --> longer loading times). Dominator Matrix 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW Brains, I'm absolutely in favor of a compromise of 50, 40, 30... even 25px. The image for which I got hammered into the ground over this last year was (if memory serves) 24 pixels wide, and mostly whitespace. NO ONE found it disruptive - just in technical violation of policy, which is precisely why I believed (and still believe) that an ironclad 19px limit is unnecessarily draconian. As for the 'trial policy' - I offered it not as a serious proposal but as an example of something we haven't tried. It illustrates the point that we haven't ever tried anything else, and yet people seem quite content to say nothing else will work. I can be persuaded to drop it, but I will never agree with that point of view. In truth, my ideal policy would be "19px max height to avoid line disruption, and commensurate width." That would leave some 'fudge space' for images that just plain work better at non-square aspect ratios, without allowing anything beyond the pale. I know many minds here will just not accept the idea that a soft limit will work... but i digress. (AUNTMOUSIE) 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a compromise of 9px wide. Backsword 03:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

May I enquire as to why you cannot use the Image to redirect to your Contributions? I imagine 50% of images in signatures approx are at the end of your signature, and your signature is invariably User:Moo134 User_talk:Moo134 followed by contributions if you link to contributions at all, of course. Due to that, I think it would be prudent to make it an option, and I can't think of why it's not allowed at this time. --> A F K When Needed 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Images

As I understand it, we're not allowed to have the same image in our signature as anyone else, is there a list of the images currently in use somewhere or is it a Fingers-crossed-hope-I-don't-get-eaten-by-a-scary-admin thing? --AlexEternal 10:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're intending to use one as a signature pic, you need to re-upload it to have the proper name anyway. -Auron >8< 11:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not that you cannot use the same image, but you cannot use the exact same version as anyone else. If you, say, want to use the monk icon, you have to upload your own copy of that icon, named after your account. But there is no limit on how many people can use the monk icon as such. - anja 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for clearing that up, now all I've gotta do is find an image that suits me xD --AlexEternal 13:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the word "file" to clarify that that's the meaning. Backsword 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning GW2W

Preferences currently carry over to GW2W and cannot be separated. The signature I have used on wikis for 2 years now is simply an image. The image is too big by GWW policy, but there is no such policy on GW2W, and won't be. However, I can't separate the two signatures because transclusion is also not allowed. And now apparently I also have to add some text to my signature here, which would also ruin it on GW2W. So, either the policy needs to be changed or I'll just go back to anonymous contributions here. File:Felix Omni Signature.png 00:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal of what should change or any ideas that could work, given that preferences are the same across both wikis? --JonTheMon 00:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The easiest solution for me would be to change the image limit to 19x50 (same as on GuildWiki) and remove the bit about requiring a text link to userpage or talk. My typical signature is pretty distinctive, and it says "Felix," so there should be no confusion as to my identity. Of course, the current 19px icon is ridiculously ambiguous. File:Felix Omni Signature.png 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, unlink preferences, because I can see it being a problem for other people in the future as well. Note that currently GWW:SIGN is essentially being enforced by default on GW2W, even though the community has no policies and seemingly doesn't desire them either. File:Felix Omni Signature.png 00:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the signature policy. I believe our policy covers the necessary situations. -- Wyn talk 00:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously it doesn't or I wouldn't have brought it up. As of right now I'm using a method suggested by Wizardboy in which I subst: an auto-protected .js page as my signature. It can't be altered by other users except for sysops. The matter of GWW:SIGN being forced onto GW2W still merits discussion though. File:Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) Wizardboy mentioned on IRC that on Wikia (which similarly shares preferences across wikis), they recommend making your signature to {{subst:User:(username)/sig.js}} if you want different sigs. I recommend we make an exception to our no transclusions rule for this, as the subst: ensures no extra server load, and the .js ensures it does not become a target for vandalism, since only admins and the user can edit it. - Tanetris 01:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing is, then we end up with 19x50 (or bigger) images in signatures, which I oppose. -- Wyn talk 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the subst: .js page trick, I now have a GWW:SIGN-acceptable signature here, and my usual 19x50 image-only signature on GW2W. I'd like to propose that a short instruction section to do the same be added to the policy page for other users (mainly from GuildWiki) who would like to use their image signatures on GW2W. Addendum: Or are you saying you oppose 19x50 signatures on GW2W? Cuz this isn't really the place to discuss that, then. File:Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since both wikis share the same preferences, she has to mean both. As result, both wikis have the same signature policy (that's how i understand it), so this is the right place to talk about signature image size. Policy says 19x19 is the max size and i see no reason to change it either. If GuildWiki has 19x50 limit, that's how they do it. This is how we do it. - J.P.Talk 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But GW2W is going to be how we do it, as in both communities together. It is by necessity a separate entity from GWW. File:Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 01:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Felix here, especially after reading his last post. Right now, GWW and GW2W's signature preferences are linked, so essentially the policies are too, as the signature has to be acceptable here to be used here, and whatever's used here is used there. The discussion should definitely be taking place. I don't find Felix's signature as it was with just the image disruptive, flashy, difficult to understand, or hindering access to his page. I believe the policy should be amended to allow for images up to 19x50 (as that is what was proposed, and I find it to be a satisfactory upper limit) and to remove the requirement of a direct link to the user's userpage or talk page. calor (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that this is a problem and we need to do something about it, but I'm just curious as to why you have to transclude here, where it is not allowed by policy, and can't transclude on GW2W where we don't have any policy regarding sigs at all? You could easily make the text sig your normal sig until this is solved (not saying you have to) and transclude the image-sig on GW2W.
To Calor, you I read it as the rest are talking more about transclusion and different sigs than altering the image size :/ Felix's problem would be solved if we allowed transclusion and we would not have to have the "bigger sig image" drama fest for the third time or so. - anja 06:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Tanetris's solution - .js subst transclusion. This wouldn't mean having to increase the 19x19px size, which is unlikely to ever happen.

Anja, he can't do that because his signature preferences are the same on GWW and GW2W - if he has a text only signature here, he has one there; if he transcludes over there, it means he also transcludes over here (because there'll be a template call in his preferences). -- Brains12 \ talk 13:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I never even thought of putting the transclusion in the sig in preferences, sorry :P I thought the subst code was copypasted in every time anyway. - anja 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We have these rulses to avoid problematic situations, not to mess with people. Since that solution also avoids the issues, I see no reason not to omplement Tantris suggestion. Backsword 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with .js transclusion as well, if that's the road we're gonna go down. calor (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)