Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive 6

Feedback:User/<YourUsername>

Could we make it possible to have your Feedback userpage as an additional option where your signature can link to? And i mean the Userpage, not a single suggestion. This can provide an easy and fast access for others to check out your suggestions. - J.P.Talk 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm up for it, but then we should have all Feedback talk:User redirect to their user talk, so we can still quickly get to their talk page C4K3 Talk 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I could change my link from my non-existant user page to my non-existant feedback page! Misery 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To make it a bit more accurate, i thought this as an option where your sig image can link. But it i'm not against of providing the link some other way.

@C4K3: I meant it as an additional link, not to replace userpage or talk link. - J.P.Talk 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure your allowed to do [[User:J.P.|J.P.]][[File:User J.P. sigicon.png]][[Feedback:User/J.P.|Feedback]] C4K3 Talk 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy says no, but my body says YES! - J.P.Talk 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it tbh. Chances are, if I'm clicking your sig, I want to contact you somehow, not read about what you want to do about Guild Wars/2. – Emmett 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I DON'T WANT THIS AS A REPLACEMENT FOR USERPAGE OR TALK PAGE LINKS FOR <BEEP> SAKE! Got it? -.- - J.P.Talk 19:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still unnecessary clutter. See 1, 2 & 3 for another somewhat similar example. (I can't remember the other time something like SI's page occurred- if I do, I'll post it.) – Emmett 19:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we used signatures to provide identification and/or a page for communication, and used userpages for other types of links. When you're signing a comment, your feedback-space suggestions are irrelevant. -- pling 19:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a link to one's contributions then irrelevant as well? - J.P.Talk 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That link is actually useful for reference and discussion. Linking to the feedback space in a sig is like linking to a hub for your characters- something better suited for a userpage. – Emmett 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Like you can't have access to those from one's userpage... - J.P.Talk 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You could link to your contribs in your userpage, but they're so useful to people that having them in a sig is generally accepted. Feedback, on the other hand, really only needs to be a link, because there aren't going to be enough people seeking out your feedback portal to justify linking it everywhere you go. – Emmett 21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I redirect my user: and talk: pages to my feedback:user/ and feedback talk:user/ pages? — Raine Valen 0:17, 29 Jul 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to signatures, but I'll give my thoughts. Your talk has to stay as is. You could do a reverse Anet with User->Feedback and Feedback talk->User talk, but that still might make it harder to get to your main talk. --JonTheMon 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting a userpage to a feedback page makes it harder for people to get to contributions, block tools, or logs. It's one of the annoying things about Anet users' talk pages, but they're obviously an exception that we have to make do with. I would oppose it for normal users. -- pling 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. — Raine Valen 22:37, 2 Aug 2010 (UTC)

image -> contributions

By the way, why the policy doesn't allow images to link to contributions? - J.P.Talk 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why others might not want an image redirecting to contributions, but I personally despise images that redirect to Contributions because they don't leave a 'paper trail' (they don't leave a little "redirected from <x>" link), and so it's a pain in the ass to get to the image, and properties doesn't give you the URL you need anyway- you have to manually type out/butcher a url to get to the image you want without being redirected, as I pointed out here- you can see an example of how long that URL is there. – Emmett 21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If the image is a legal image, there really is no reason to get to the image, by anyone other than the owner. If they aren't capable of navigating to it, they shouldn't be doing it. -- Wyn talk 01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just what i thought. But now that i think about it, it's kinda selfish. - J.P.Talk 02:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GFDL requires (visible) attribution, though, Wyn. But that is what Special:ListTransclusions is for. poke | talk 07:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

another proposal try

There has been ongoing dicussion on my user page about my clearly nondisruptive signature which I identify myself with because of some stiff rule that was tried to get changed several times already (see above) and that has additional images in mind. I therefore propose this amendment to the GW:SIGN policy:

• "If you use a single image to represent your signature, this image may be a maximum of 80x19 / 100x19 (you decide) pixels large and no additional images may be used in your signature. The image must display your user name in a readable manner and not be considered disruptive, aswell as link to your user page or user talk page."

-- 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this has been brought up multiple times before, and that the community has in the past reached the consensus of not modifying the policy (or has failed to come to a consensus of modifying it), I don't think you'll get anywhere without having an extremely convincing argument - a lot of points have been dragged on ad infinitum previously so there's probably not a lot new that you could say, and the community hasn't changed so drastically that this change will be accepted without one. A large part of the policy-discussing community don't think that the rule is unacceptably "stiff". -- pling 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes my suggestion different is that it's a suggestion that doesn't give way to the "slippery slope" thing that was brought up time and time again. Like someone said on my userpage, these discussions ended in "but what if someone wants 10000x19", just set ONE standard for signatures that consist of an image only, this is something new. The existing restriction is for pictures that are attached in addition to normal signature text, and so were the proposals in the past, if I look up here. -- 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we can just go to color usages and such and dig out all the bad examples we had in the very beginning.. (see archive) poke | talk 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) So, your proposal would still the use of the "single icon" custom, and be worded along the lines of:

*Images -> Aditionally, a single image of lenght no higher than 100x19 can be used as replacement of the user's name. The image must redirect to the user's talk page and the user's name must be clearly visible.

That doesn't sound "that bad" really, since it's no really different than using "random-font001 not found on all windows versions". We would need to include weight limits and restrictions to the image type (specifically, no animations).--Fighterdoken 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I always have supported a one-image sig, but people fail to see how truly harmless it'd be. Also, the very thing I've been referring to isn't even archived yet. I reccommend reading the current page in its entirety, Taki.-- anguard 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image type jpeg or png, image must be in the specific 100x19 format (no bigger pictures downsized by wiki code), no animations as already defined for other images. -- 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the perpetual redirect problems we have had when the wiki software is updated, not to mention the instances where images just get lost during these upgrades and have to be reuploaded, I'm against this type of signature. A text link is always going to be a sure way to reach a user's page, while redirects get broken. -- Wyn talk 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current signature with images. If you make it longer, people may not link their images to their talk pages or user pages as would or should be suggested. -- riyen ♥ 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to desperately find arguments against image signatures. While Wyn's concerns may be valid (I've never seen any redirect get broken unless the page was moved), Ariyen yours don't make any sense. First, whats "make it longer" supposed to mean? My sig is hardly longer than yours (and btw way shorter in markup text) and I can show you hundreds of text-based sigs here that are longer and in part visually disturbing. Second, people may or may not link to anything, this isn't anything image specific. If I write my name into the sig field and check the wikitext option I'll get an unlinked signature, easy as that - you don't need any images to do that. Oh and regarding the threats to take away my editing rights (esentially a ban), I will remove the signature if a concensus against my proposal is reached. -- 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't decide things here by vote, outside elections. - J.P.Talk 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should remove it until consensus has been reached in support of your signature - as of now, it's still against the policy, which is the current consensus. -- pling 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The policy already has points to deal with what you've stated, Taki. Signatures require links, and signature that are too long or "visually disturbing" are routinely noted as such on the user's talk page, and fixed. I really don't see why the policy should be changed to allow for larger images, especially at the expense of any/all text links. -- FreedomBound 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See, signatures require links. The images wouldn't be an exception, I don't see how "some users wouldn't link to their user page" then. Why "at the expense of"? Text signatures would be unaffected.

Btw I find black signatures visually disturbing, because you can't distinguish them from normal text (standard link text is blue) >_> but I don't force others to change their color. -- 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't require signatures to please everyone. The "at the expense of" is in reference to your proposal allowing signatures that are comprised completely of images. They get a longer image, but it doesn't allow for text links. -- FreedomBound 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

the joke of a tally has been removed. consensus via discussion is what makes a wiki a wiki. -Auron 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"I've never seen any redirect get broken unless the page was moved" This is because you have not been on GWW very long Taki. We have had multiple occasions of redirects becoming broken when the wiki software has been updated. It often takes days to get things fixed, or in worse cases, we have had to reupload images. I just don't see how having image only links can be a good thing. Also, as far as you keeping your image until consensus against your proposal is reached, well, that's not how it's done. You need to change your signature until your proposal is accepted, otherwise you are in violation of current policy. I already pointed this out to you on your talk page. -- Wyn talk 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we are a wiki about documenting a game. What does it matter if we "stifle people's creativity" when it comes to making signatures? Spending this much time discussing it even is pretty ridiculous. There may not be strong reasoning for the 19x19 image limit, there is some reasoning but it's not amazing, there is actually no valid reason for increasing the limit. "I would like to use a bigger image" is not a valid reason. We could ban all images, would not hurt the site and its purpose. Maybe it's time to start using my signature from PvX. I don't have the right image uploaded here =/ Misery Says Moo 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I prefer to see a Difference, between PvX and GWW. I have difference signatures different places, even image signature on a forum, but to me this site is to document a game, not show off my signature, hence reason I think that some prefer not to be 'outspoken' with 'big images' (more than 19x19) or really a 'Show off' name. We're not really here for that, shouldn't be anyway. It use to not be based on 'popularity' as much as what one could actually 'do', etc. (Yea, actually been on here as a different ip, when I was on my own.) -- riyen ♥ 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just showcasing how gaudy my signature is there, while still being policy legal here. The two sites are very different, PvX isn't really about documenting anything, it's about circle jerking. Misery 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Break

How about,

"You may use an image that is not longer than your signature would be in 14pt Arial Black and not taller than 19 pixels."

There's no BS slippery slope because it's a hard limit that remains functional regardless of name length, so "User:Bob" can't go for the 9,001x19 image and say it adheres to policy.

Are there any reasons why this shouldn't be done? is for Raine, etc. 06:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my comments at all Raine? -- Wyn talk 06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"The wiki is for documentation, etc." I've gathered that to be your major grievance with the idea; is there anything further? is for Raine, etc. 06:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Images are less reliable than text" was actually what Wyn's been posting about. On a sidenote, you realize your sig breaks policy, right Raine? - Tanetris 06:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The markup is too long and I'm technically impersonating another user; was there something else?

Also, I'll look for the "images are less reliable" argument; I missed it someplace. is for Raine, etc. 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here and here specifically, but with all the general image problems we have had (most of which are also documented in those archives) I don't feel that relying solely on an image as a direct contact (which is ultimately what a signature is for) for a user is a good idea. If there wasn't so much of a history of problems, I wouldn't be concerned. -- Wyn talk 06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of restricting signature image size more strictly for users with shorter user names. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@Wynthyst: from what I read there, the issue has been fixed. Were there repeat occurrences after this fix was implemented that would compel you to believe that there is still an issue there? is for Raine, etc. 06:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@Gordon Ecker: My intention is to allow users to create image signatures in fonts that may or may not be supported; hence, a limit on image size based on name length. While the above proposal may not properly reflect that, please understand that it is not designed to be a "final solution" so much as a new concept; any sort of refinement would be welcome. is for Raine, etc. 06:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they've said before it's been fixed, and then it happens again? When the base code of Media Wiki changes without them realizing it and they push an update live only to find out the bugs after? I'm not dissing the IT staff, but considering it's happened at least twice, there is always the potential it may happen again, and I don't see the reason to do this. Signatures are for allowing easy access to user and user talk pages, not for expressing creativity. User pages do that, and we have very few rules regarding user pages. -- Wyn talk 06:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The two links show that it was "to be fixed" (but not, in fact, fixed) in June and fixed the following January; has it been an issue since then?

Signatures also serve the purpose of allowing readers to quickly distinguish posters at a glance; for this purpose, more variant signatures like Salomes or my own (albeit, without the policy violations) are better. While more allowance for variation does allow creativity to have a greater influence, it does have a practical benefit. Unless creativity is a "bad thing", allowing further variation would have a benefit greater than its (otherwise non-existent) drawback. is for Raine, etc. 07:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The image redirects are broken with every MediaWiki upgrade; simply because MW decided with MW1.12 to change the code to make it a "feature" that images can't redirect to pages in other mainspace. As we are however relying on those redirects we modify the MW core code to make it working again, however that requires time and unless it's done the redirects are broken. And even though I provided the code changes for the recent upgrade months before it was changed, the redirects were still broken for quite a while because they forgot to include the changes in the end. We can simply not rely on features that are not part of the core MediaWiki code or compatible extensions that work even with upgrading. It's bad enough that normal next-to-text signature images or skill image redirects break in such situtions. poke | talk 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to throw in my 2 cents, I have to agree with Taki on this. I personally wouldn't be changing my sig, but I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy the amends.--Unendingfear 13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Poke's comment (which evidently echoed Wyn's earlier statements) is, imo, the first actual reason I've seen for disallowing image-only signatures, and what's more, it's an extremely good one! I propose adding something about that to the policy, I think it will deter future requests. elix Omni 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my proposal, I suggest adding the following text to the Images header:

• Signatures consisting only of an image are discouraged (disallowed?) due to MediaWiki image redirect issues.

elix Omni 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here, there is a fix (on-hand, at that) to the drawback of image-only signatures which, as several other images have the same issue, will have to be applied with each upgrade (so long as said "feature" remains), regardless of the signature policy.

If this is the case, then having signatures composed of only images is still a non-issue, no? is for Raine, etc. 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the redirect function is something that is hard coded into the Media Wiki software and may change with subsequent updates, rendering the current "fix" non-functional, could mean that once again, redirects could break and take days to get fixed. If we allow image only signatures that would render them useless for that amount of time. Is it really worth it? -- Wyn talk 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes ^-^--Unendingfear 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No. de Kooning 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Or people can just put forth the effort to type in a small name to get where they want. They'd live.-- anguard 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it wouldn't render the images useless. You'd just click on the image, be brought to the image page, and click on the non-functional redirect link below it. elix Omni 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While, that's a good idea. Some may think, "That's too much effort." -- riyen ♥ 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the incident of MW botching the redirects should completely veto the concept of larger image/image-only sigs. To me it seems the equivalent keeping a good pair of shoes in the cupboard just because you might step into a puddle with them eventually. ena. 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what you get from pushing yourself up by one argument... poke | talk 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"On a sidenote, you realize your sig breaks policy, right Raine?" Tanetris, some people don't care about enforcing policy unless it applies to certain people.69.182.188.52 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GF, stop with the whole "biasing" crap, it's getting old! Shadow Runner 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Something else that I am not sure that has been considered or not. In HTML there is the ability to have alternate text display if for some reason the associated image is unusable (not available). I do not know the wiki setup well enough to know if this works, but if it does, it could be a possible issue resolver that Wyn seems to be concerned with.69.182.188.52 01:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

The issue isn't that the images might possibly not display, but that they might possibly not redirect for a couple of days if our current solution to the issue is incompatible with a newer version of mediawiki.

As per my sig breaking policy, I'd direct you to my talkpage. is for Raine, etc. 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

length

Is there a specific limitation on the length of a signature? If not, I would like to request the anal users of gww to lawyer out some specific limitation on how long a sig is allowed to be, so that I can avoid being banned by (or wave policy in the face of) anal admins and may continue shitting around unfettered on the wiki. Maf procrastinates on his homework. 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy already contains all the information you need:

"It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."

"Your signature should neither inconvenience nor annoy other editors."

"Use short signatures, both in display and markup."

Extra text (as you have now) is generally frowned upon, and most users find it annoying as it does nothing to further identify you, and simply lengthens your signature needlessly. Long signatures clutter up talk pages, I would seriously recommend you simply use your username (or a recognizable version of it Maf for instance) and stop pushing the limits. -- Wyn talk 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any numbers there. I would not be pushing any limits if there was a number, which is what I was getting at. Otherwise I could just argue that it only annoyed the 3 or 4 people that actually complained on my talk page, and didn't bother the other hundreds (?) of users that didn't leave me a note saying "hey, you're doing okay sig-wise; keep up the good work." Maf has been using Maf in sigs. 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that other editors did not leave a note because there were already notes on your page regarding your signature. Quite a novel idea to some, I'm sure, but piling on complaint after complaint about the same thing is rarely beneficial to any of the involved parties. -- FreedomBound 13:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not going to add some arbitrary number. Use what common sense you have and simply keep it short and simple, without any useless, unnecessary text, no one cares if you are procrastinating on your homework, or using Maf in sigs, just make it Maf, or Mafaraxas. "Extra text (as you have now) is generally frowned upon" Why is that so difficult for you? Your signature is not a creative expression of who you are, or a tweet about what you are currently doing. It's to identify which user is posting and providing an easy access link to your userspace so people can contact you if they wish. -- Wyn talk 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)