Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Draft 070731

Yet another try

Since the previous draft I posted wasn't very successful when it came to the icon, as per Bex's advice, I've rewritten that draft and removed the icon changes. I've reorganised certain sections of it and trimmed it a bit, while keeping the rules simple and clear. I've more or less duplicated the section on policy violation that I've used for the user page draft, but I've left a blank in there because I have no idea whether admins can change someone's preferences. So, please do fill that in. The rest are mostly stronger rewordings or simplifying the wording from the previous draft. -- ab.er.rant 10:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it, just two things:

• A week to change is i think too long:3 days after first warning,2 days after second warning.
• If a admin can modify preferences then he/she should do that after the second warning. If the user ignores this then a ban.

~ Kurd 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but maybe others will spot problems I don't. But thumbs up so far. :) - BeX 10:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. Signatures may only contain, your username,icon,link to talk, and link to contributions. Or else we will get people using forum signature's. And btw how about adding this to the "request for comment" section? ~ Kurd 23:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I chose 1 week and 3 days is because I wanted it to be something less strict. But perhaps a signature should be held to stricter rules compared to user pages. But this still doesn't solve the question of what admins should do if a user ignores both the notice and the warning. Perhaps a sentence that implies that if a user continues normal activities and continues to use the violating signature (and ignoring the warning), immediate action can taken?

As for Skakid9090's signature, I admit it's irritating too. Similar to another user who chose to put in a long quote into his signature. I'm not sure I can word that in properly though. Because it's not just the links. A signature can be created to link to only those pages but still use inappropriate words and phrases in the signature as the links themselves. Something needs to be added that will curtail the use of inappropriate words. I'm also concerned with the increasing use of symbols to represent alphabets as well. -- ab.er.rant 14:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How about: You're not allowed to put anything else in your signature besides:

• A link to userpage
• A link to your talk page.
• A link to your contributions page.
• Icon.

We cant stop them if they registered with the symbols in their name. and they can still register whit a symbol version of their name and redirect it to their page :/ ~ Kurd 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that a link like "This is my link to a my talk page" is perfectly valid. Or a ""This is my favourite quote from where!"" is also, unfortunately, valid. So we have to somehow limit the wording that's allowed for the allowed links. -- ab.er.rant 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think aber.RANT is just making up the rules as he sees things evolve in user customization of their sigs. Personally, I'm appalled by this. There's a differencebetween disruptive and non disruptive. For example, LOOK HERE is clearly not included in official policy, and is in NO WAY disruptive. You want to be retentive, sure, but don't make things up as you go along. You want the policy to be in your own words, make sure that people agree to it first, then talk. And no, I'm never gonna change my sig for you. Her sig is just 2pt size bigger than mine, and exactly the same. Laura Brinklow 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to look beyond the fact that you helped Alexia create her sig and not take it so personally. First, please look at the current signature policy, specifically the section on apperance and color. I am not "making up the rules". It specifically disallows the use of formatting that makes the font size of your signature bigger. Did you even read it? I'm not even asking you to change your sig so why are you even stating that you're not changing it for me? And if you're thinking I wrote that policy all by myself, please read the talk page for the signature policy as well as the older archived discussion on the signature policy. And lastly, since you're talking about it on this talk page, let me point it out to you that this is a draft policy and is currently awaiting (quoting you) "make sure that people agree to it first, then talk". I wasn't even referring to this page when I notified Alexia of policy violation. Please read things carefully before blowing your top. -- ab.er.rant 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You see, as a webpage designer, I thrive on my knowledge of style formatting. And some of the time, disabling certain functions on the wiki results in breaking my page, but that's a another issue altogether, because you might use that against me and say that I'm not as good as I say I am. Here is what I was trying to prove to you, but without theproper research as to why that girl's signature was infact NOT breaking the rules

Testing 8PT TAHOMA TEXT

Testing 10PT TAHOMA TEXT

Testing 10pt Arial NORMAL SIZE WIKI TEXT

Thank you very much for your attention. Have a nice day, kind sir. Laura Brinklow 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above couple of comments between the two of you look like something that belongs on a user talk page, given that they seem to be heading off on a tangent away from this draft proposal discussion, and towards an entirely separate issue. What exactly does a certain user's signature have to do with whether this policy draft is a good overall idea or not? Can we try to discuss that and keep personal disputes in personal places? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a suggestion to be more specific on the draft, as you may not have understood the direction I was going. Sorry for disrupting your game. See ya around. Laura Brinklow 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See? Aiiane didn't get your point either. Let me help you rephrase (and please do correct me if I misinterpreted it again, and not accuse me of something else). I believe Laura was trying to say that changing the font-size to 10pt is in no way affecting the line height. I think she's referring to the part where it says <big> is not allowed. Laura, if you would like to propose a change of wording to the draft, please do. Please try to understand that I was simply rewording the existing GWW:SIGN into what I think is a better wording. I did not change much of the original meaning and I was most certainly not trying to mould it into something I want. -- ab.er.rant 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I don't want to fight with you. I'm just trying to show you that 10pt is exactly the same as standard sized text. And that 10pt Tahoma is infact smaller than standard Arial, used on this wiki. But whatever man. Now I know some things about some things. Laura Brinklow 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for my previous tone. Let me help you reiterate your suggestion in another section below. -- ab.er.rant 05:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help -> Help:Signatures

Cut out huge parts which do not belong on a policy page. These can be found on the help page now. --Xeeron 11:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Font sizes and font families

User:Laura Brinklow has brought up a point regarding font sizes and font families. Neither the existing policy nor this draft made a mention of whether the font can be changed or not, and I concede that it needs to be addressed. The draft only restricts <big>, but it makes no mention of the font. The question is, do we try to restrict the fonts that are allowed (which might prove difficult to implement)? Do we disallow font changes? Or do we just state in the "Appearance" section that the resulting signature cannot appear to be larger than the surrounding text? Or... some other choices? -- ab.er.rant 05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be more specific, and I was going to add also that perhaps broadening the range in which a signature could be customized, within a very reasonable window, would decrease the chances that a user might want to grab all the attention. I propose a list of fonts that are similar or smaller in size as the original wiki font, which is currently 10pt Arial. In this list, say 5 set fonts, could be used to increase the ideal that an individual is indeed unique and happy with his signature without the need to make it stand out, because he/she got what they wanted out of the deal. Also, without the need to hack the standard Arial font to pieces, would this be feasible enough to prevent further conflicts in the future? I believe so. Here is a list of possible fonts that could be visually identified as "signature" text, for users who read large amounts of text at once, thus improving the experience on the wiki.

Lucida Sans Unicode (maximum 10pt)

Tahoma(maximum 10pt)

Verdana (maximum 10pt)

Courier New (maximum 10pt)

Arial (already standard at 10pt)

Thank you for your consideration and thoughts on this subject. Laura Brinklow 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this would be the fact that at first glance, I see alot of text and among it should be nearly blank lines to separate one post from another in a talk page. But occasionally you reach a part where it gets harder to differentiate the forethought of how long the currently viewed post might be before reading it, or moving on. Seeing the signature fonts in peripheral vision range in advance, would help greatly in my decision, hehehe :) Laura Brinklow 06:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing font types as long it gets changed back after(doh!!), and it counts for 150 character limit. So by putting <span style="font: 8pt Tahoma rgb(200,200,200);"> in your sig you know you already took 50 characters ~ Kurd 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, using that code doesn't even work. :P - BeX 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No?, i took it out of Laura's sig ~ Kurd 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and it looks like default text in Firefox, completely unchanged. - BeX 08:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

O, I was wondering what she meant when she said I'm not changing it for you ~ Kurd 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The font property does not accept colors..

But I would accept different font but the font size should be left out! This because mediaWiki uses a percental size (x-small in combination with 127%) - adding a size could really destroy the page layout for some users. poke | talk 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To make this clear: The default text size (for me only as it changes for every resolution) is 12.666px, your examples with font-size: 10pt; are 13.333px high. poke | talk 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my sig to not include color, as I noticed as well that it is indeed redundant. But in order for the font to display a size has to be written in the span style. I will do some more testing on that in my sandbox to see the results.Laura Brinklow 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I figured out how to make the sig change with the page size in other fonts. Use font-family:Tahoma and so forth and the standard will be 10pt, just like when people use Arial(the standard). That way signatures are just as "accessible" as the rest of the text, when it comes to setting "TEXT SIZE" on the browser by some users, everything will work accordingly. And if people prefer to see their sigs in a smaller size than the standard 10pt size, the font property could be written like this: style= "font:80% Tahoma;". Then when a user changes Text Size on the whole page, the displayed text would stay smaller than the standard text in all levels of viewing. Laura Brinklow 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is to show my sig in 80% size: Laura Brinklow 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the character limit that Kurd proposes is indeed too small for most people who have 2 words in their user names. Thinking about adding a third link for contributions would be out of the question if that rule was implemented. Not to be picky, but I would allow 200 character maximum to gain full benefits of the sig's customizing features. I agree that Kurd's sig is probably very small in the first place and doesn't require such a large amount of characters to implement. If that would be taken into consideration I would likely agree much more with the draft in question. In addition, as for the size, we could set a limit such as 90% on all fonts excluding the standard (which defaults already) and likely have to shorten the list of fonts to be used a specific few, such as Tahoma and Verdana (one word each). You see I'm trying to fit my proposal taking into consideration all aspects of your proposal, without changing too much of your already decent rules. Laura Brinklow 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"You see, as a webpage designer, I thrive on my knowledge of style formatting." - Your comments above does not veryify this imo.. But as I said before: We should not allow absolute font-size changes, the only this what would be allowed is using percentages below 100% (even if we would need to give a minimum as the following could be is difficult to read: A very small text (50%) ). I think font sizes above 80% are ok. poke | talk 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit) "but I would allow 200 character maximum to gain full benefits of the sig's customizing features" - I don't see real benefits in changing fonts for a signature.. poke | talk 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of Kurd's proposal, I have also thought of a proposal for fresher editing standards. Adding a blank line after an older post before proceeding with the indent and post. This would separate text in the editor's field and provide a better field of view for your own post editing needs. Therefore eliminating the need to limit characters in signature markup. Ok maybe you didn't read the entire history with the quotes you used, and I would appreciate if you did NOT patronize me. I don't look at YOUR credentials and take your word for it, as it seems you likely don't want to talk to me or consider my proposal because of those statements. Please refrain from using those quotes, I don't appreciate it. Let's be professional. Here's my sig in 90% Tahoma style, conforming with all rules except Kurd's rule. Laura Brinklow 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurd has rules? - BeX 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok forget it guys. My sig stays the way it is. Have a nice day. No use talking to people like you. Thanks to ab.er.RANT for the opportunity to voice my opinion on this page. I'm done now. Laura Brinklow 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Okay with the font size ABOVE 80%, but not to lengthen the character's to 200, maybe to 175? ~ Kurd 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Having clear lines between comments (indented with :) causes MediaWiki to create a lot of dd and dt tags (one for each indent), using the line directly after a comment, uses the already opened tags and saves bandwidth. Having a clear line after a paused discussion (to start it again) is of course expedient. Eliminating the limits of signatures was already discussed here. If I remember correctly there are some arguments against removing (and increasing) the limits.

And just to note: I read all related discussions to this issue and I'm not patronizing you. I just think that you maybe have overrated yourself a bit. And of course I consider your proposals; I'm open to allow multiple fonts and I wanted to increase the character limit in signatures, too. But because of the discussions on that last thing I don't think we need to start again with it. Also regarding longer names, the current draft includes already something for this: "with reasonable leniency given to users with long user names" so it should not be a problem.

Could it be that you are taking this a bit too serious? poke | talk 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wow, seriously, there's no need to behave that way. It's 2am here and I'm drowsy and easily confused at the moment. I had to reread and saw that you meant a rule from the existing policy - it isn't a proposal from Kurd, he's just quoting what is already in use. As for that, I personally don't support making it any longer than it is now. And on the talk page for the existing policy you can see that the majority of people were against allowing more characters. - BeX 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, otherwise known as vote of confidence. But seriously you didn't have to say those things in the first place. I hope that in the future we can see eye to eye without some sort of history lesson to prove who is better and more educated. I'm no genious and I never claimed to be, but I had to get my foot in the door somehow, and that was the only way I, being someone who studied webpage design for almost 10 years, but never got a job doing it, nor any paper work from the education system to prove that I am indeed in the higher percentile of the intelligent community, do not feel it is necessary to compare backgrounds. It is best that I leave it as is, and move on, then keep going in the direction you seem to be wanting to go. Maybe I look up to you for being able to change things so effectively on this wiki, because of your experience level, but after I saw that comment, my head spun in a different direction. So why does that surprise you? Laura Brinklow 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote the comment I thought about deleting it immediately but I did not. I do respect you for studying web design, as I do this simply as a hobby. But when you said, that you have knowledge of style formatting and then read that you are using colors within a font tag, I just reacted as if this cannot be true.. But I think that it was simply a mistake (as we all do mistakes) by you, as it was a mistake by me to react that way. Sorry for that, but maybe you can take the whole issue a bit less serious as it's just a signature? :) poke | talk 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You know how when police officers walk, they walk with their arms out, even when they don't have the holster belt on, to show some individualism and that they are members of higher society/authority. That's how I feel about signatures. The opportunity to express individualism outside of my user page. The ability to match my signature with the text on my user page is something I would rather like to see on the wiki. I feel that a level of consistency between a user's talk page and his/her sig is, by choice, a nice alternative to what we have now. Let's be different than GuildWiki. Your room's walls are blue, your favorite color is blue, you like to wear blue clothes when you go to your friend's house. Well my user page font is Tahoma, and although 10pt seems to be ~1 px bigger than 10pt Arial on your monitor, it looks smaller on my monitor. And knowing that I can use my user page's style properties gives other users a glimpse of my space when I post on their talk page. Consistency, consistency, consistency, anyone? Again, I'm not trying to break rules, I'm just trying to make them a tiny bit more leanient toward those who like to express that type of individualism on the wiki, with minimal impact on the current policies. Laura Brinklow 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, no the fact is that the actual size of the normal text (as stated before) is x-small (for the general page layout) and 127% (for the article text) - This looks like 10pt but actually it is not. So defining the text size as 10pt is simply not the same. Omitting the font size or changing it by using percentage values allows others to change the 127% for example to 150% (by using monobook.css) and increasing the font size of everything including your signature. poke | talk 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit) btw. you could save some characters by using the following code for your signature instead: <span style="font:90% Tahoma">[[User:Laura Brinklow|Laura]] [[User talk:Laura Brinklow|Brinklow]]</span> poke | talk 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My sig is already like that lol :) I was using 10pt as an example size.. didn't mean to steer you in the wrong direction with the statement. But yes.. I agree with using percentages, as it increases page accessibility (for people who use monobook.css, and for those who use the browser Text-Size setting. The limit, in order for it to be still smaller than the actual wiki text is 90% and the lower end would be 80% to prevent the text from becoming too small when a user sets his browser text size to "Very Small". (EDIT) oh I see what you are saying.. instead of repeating the span attribute. I see now THANKS! Laura Brinklow 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me about my sig(I changed it). Also I would like to address that only we limit the font usage to 1 for the entire signature, as using more than 1 font results in multiple span tags, thus breaking the already existing policy rules. So in summary, here are the specifics that I propose:

• The ability to use any of these 4 popular fonts (Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida Sans Unicode, Courier New) WITH:
• Size limit: 80-90%
• Limit of One(1) span element-style attribute that include font properties per signature

And there you go. :) Laura Brinklow 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but font size should be allowed up to 100% ;) poke | talk 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing about "consistency", I suppose it came from my user page? I am rather particular about consistency, and I do think that a signature should be more consistent with the page it is on that a page I might never even visit. So, to me, consistency with talk pages is more important than consistency with a particular user's style (which is why I'd much rather that even non-default colors are disallowed, but that's quite impossible to push for :P), but I digress. Back to my opinion on this.

The thing about getting users to add appropriate line breaks is going to be difficult to implement. We can't force people to add the necessary empty line or indent it properly, just as we can't force people to sign. So it wouldn't really achieve anything by adding that.

Here's my counter-proposal to edit into the draft:

• Markup tags <sup> and <sub> (which produce ^sup, and _sub) are not allowed; they disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text.
• A slight font size reduction is allowed (from 80% to 100% of default size). Do not use absolute font sizes. By extension, <small> tag is allowed but <big> is not.
• Do not format your signature to appear bigger than the surrounding text.

I don't feel like mentioning font at all (less savvy users might not think of it, right?). It's fine to tell people their signature is too big or too small, which may disrupt people reading it, but telling people the font they used is wrong feels a bit funny. I'm thinking the last paragraph of "Failure to adhere" section should cover problematic fonts. But for weird fonts, most people probably wouldn't have them installed in the first place. I'm thinking of adding a little mention that formatting of any sort do not all appear the same and is rather dependent on the viewer's machine.

I feel more feedback from other people is necessary. I'll go change the GWW:RFC. -- ab.er.rant 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly showing username

Would like some comments on User talk:Mgrinshpon with regards to having a signature that shows the username clearly. Is that an extreme but acceptable signature? -- ab.er.rant 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would never have associated those characters with the user name. :P - BeX 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about, you signature should clearly show your username in latin characters(so no images) ~ Kurd 09:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine. - BeX 10:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Finalise

After sitting in RFC for a couple of days and no more feedback or objections, I propose for this to replace the existing the policy. -- ab.er.rant 05:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not complete. The failure to adhere section isn't finished. I think the "clearly display your user name" should have something about using strange characters added to the end too. - BeX 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, forgot about the last part. Any suggestions on what admins can do if some user chooses to ignore violation notices? Stern warning and another grace period? A short warning ban?

And the characters... hmm... something like "Minimize use of characters that are not actually part of your username."? But I think that short sentence is actually quite clear and covers a broad enough scope, imho. Coupled with the obligation to conform should be solid enough. Otherwise, all I can think of is, "please use only characters that are actually in your username" :/ -- ab.er.rant 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think being explicit like that isn't a bad move - so many people like to use leet speak, etc. As for the violations, I don't think we are able to change someone's signature for them, so we're limited to blocking them. I think we need more opinions on it though. Are there even any ramifications for violating the current policy? - BeX 08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"please use only characters that are actually in your username" - uhm. "poke | talk" damn, I registered "poke", no "t", "a" and "l" ^^

I would says something like "Avoid using non-Latin characters for representation of your registered name." or "Avoid using other characters to express Latin characters in your name."..? poke | talk 13:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's on the right track, and a good clarification, but needs better wording. :) - BeX 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can an account be created using non-Latin characters? I was trying to avoid using "Avoid" because I was thinking that it might be better to minimise or discourage the use of such characters but not disallowing them. Kinda like, it's fine for 1 or 2 but don't go overboard kind of meaning. -- ab.er.rant 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Do not use characters that are not in your user name to represent the characters in your user name. For example, substituting characters in a manner such as leet speak is discouraged as it makes it difficult for users to read your namey." - BeX 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty nice, I like that one. Maby a bit too repetitive with "your user name" all over the place, but otherwise ok. -- (gem / talk) 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly showing username

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Riven (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Most of you probably know this guy, he has been warned(and blocked?) several times for his sig but keeps using it. I could have warned him again but reading trough his talkpage tells me i'm going to waste my time ~ Kurd 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but how is his sig currently in violation? I thought the previous disagreement with him was the size of the image, but it is currently within bounds at 19x19 pixels. --Rainith 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he changed it. I think originally it was because his username (underlined) was too tall -elviondale (tahlk) 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying in interrupt or anything, but does banning Riven really solve anything? His sig is not overly disruptive: it does not blink, it does not disrupt text alignment from what I can see, so what exactly is the problem here? I in no way like Riven, he is annoying/reckless/self-centered/ect, but isn't there more important things to do, in its stead? Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He should still complete his ban sentence.--§ Eloc §

Hmmm, if you guys think his current signature is fine, could you guys offer some feedback on Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments/Draft 070731? It specifically says a signature has to "Clearly display your username in your signature.". -- ab.er.rant 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fine. It should have to follow that rule because if we remove that rule, then everyone else will be going by small parts of there name that doesn't completly identify them.--§ Eloc §

His sig isn't showing a username which was the primary reason he was warned ~ Kurd 08:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't you liek force change it and lock him from changing his nickname?--§ Eloc § 08:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't. Only you can change your own preferences. Kurd, according to the current GWW:SIGN, Riven's sig isn't exactly against policy actually. Which is why the sentence I pointed out above was above to the draft, to see if anyone else agrees to having such a sentence in the policy. So far, no one has disagreed yet. -- ab.er.rant 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "Signatures may show a shortened version of your user name. In order to do this you must register that shortened version as a user account and make the user page of the new account a redirect to your user page. The shorter version must be an easily recognized variation of your name."? He can't simply be going by .--§ Eloc § 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the wording isn't clear. It says he may use a shortened version. But because his is an icon, and he didn't use actual text for his username. And there's nothing that says he must use text. It's just arguable, so I'm mostly not bothering with issues like this and focus on getting both the user page draft and the signature draft up and ready first. -- ab.er.rant 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a nickname which hides your true user name...are seen as disruptive and are not allowed. This is the only other part I can find in the currect policy about this. I don't know if the wording is better there? - anja 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO this entire arguement is ridicolous! His sig is not offending, it isn't annoying, it doesn't affect the text, at most it's just 'Stylish' It's quite clearly obvious that it is a reference to himself (He's not trying to impersonate anyone) and it link directly to his userpage as it should. There should be nothing wrong with it and TBH if it's in violation with the current polivy then the policy should change, not his sig. --ChronicinabilitY 09:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is about to change ;) See the draft aberrant linked. Although, it's not changing to his favor at this time. - anja 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By that policy Riven would just have to register User:R and redirect to himself and then he would be fine, Since shortened versions of usernames are allowed.--ChronicinabilitY 09:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By the new draft, if he had R registered, he would still need to use a forward facing R. - BeX 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No as it IS an easily recognisable form of the name. Don't try and say that it's not because even yourself just recognised that it is an R. But...IF the new policy does not allow for him to use the sig that he has then i oppose the policy. The ONLY reason people want his sig changed is the policy, there is nothing actually wrong with his sig at all. The policy should allow for this, not be used to manipulate users into changing things just because certain other users don't like it (and for no good reason) --ChronicinabilitY 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The new draft says don't use characters that aren't in your name. There is no back to front R in Riven. His current sig is in violation because it does not show his user name, which is why this section is here. - BeX 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If he registers User:R then he will be fine (As long as it redirects). And stop nit-picking at the fact the R is the other way around. Yes it is, it looks nicer doesn't it...it's still CLEARLY OBVIOUS that it is the letter R! Stop trying to stop him having it for no good reason. --ChronicinabilitY 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It always seems strange to me whenever an argument is made that there is "no good reason" for something. Isn't it generally possible that there is a good reason that you just haven't considered? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "there might be good reason for this, but I don't see it"? --Rezyk 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I mean come on.. who didn't spell their R's like that for the first 7 years of their life? -elviondale (tahlk) 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But that would be me like registering User:E and redirecting it to User:Eloc Jcg. You can't shorten your name to 1 letter.--§ Eloc § 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not if I beat you to it Eloc :P -elviondale (tahlk) 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of "no good reason", that's not exactly a strong argument. It's equally easy for me to say there's "no good reason" for a user to not show his full username. -- ab.er.rant 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well here is one good reason: your signature is partly designed to identify you as a user. If other people cannot identify you by the text you are using for your signature then we have a problem. - BeX 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice my "not" in there, in case you missed it. But I believe Chronicinability's point-of-view is that clear identification of a user does not need to always involve one's user name. I'm really in the middle I guess, I'd much rather people not register additional accounts for the sole purpose of using a sig with a shorter name. -- ab.er.rant 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that, a person can be clearly identified without having to include thier entire username. As long as the signiture used is consistent then there should be no problems. As is proven by Riven's case in point. Nobody here is going to see his signiature and not know it's him. It therefore does as the sig should and identifies him. If someone was unsure of who it was, then they would click on his sig which links to his userpage and find out the details of the user. This however has nothing to do with them nor understanding the sig, it is to do with them simply not knowing the person. I would see a case for you're arguement should riven be uploading new images every few days and all his sig's look different, but the consistency of his sig makes it very easily recognisable as him...which is all it needs to do. --ChronicinabilitY 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather good point. It beats saying "go and register another account to use a shorter sig". It'll also loosen up this policy. But the important follow-up consideration for this (if it is accepted) is whether there should be a clause that discourages people from changing their sig too often and too drastically. The thing about not having the actual username as a piece of text in their sig is that the moment the icon changes, it becomes an entirely new signature instead. Whereas, if you or I or BeX changes our icon, our user name remains, making it more easily recognisable and provides a sense of consistency. But granted, these are more behavioral or etiquette concerns. -- ab.er.rant 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the not in there aberrant, I was kind of responding also to Rezyk's comment. I don't think that Riven is a particularly good example for this because that signature has become infamous because of this very matter. I often encounter new users using different nicknames from their user name and it is very misleading. I've said to people in conversation did you see that comment by "UserX" and they would say yes, and we'd try go directly to their user page to find such user doesn't exist. Say for instance that I registered under a name beginning with R, and I decided to upload a similar icon that was a backwards R as well. There is nothing stopping me from doing so. That name cannot be registered and it would cause confusion, for both old and new users. - BeX 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exact file name for sig images

This draft looks good to me, but would we really need to police all variations to the "User Rurik sig.ext" formula?

Image:User_Lemming64_sigicon.png, Image:User_Ab.er.rant_Sig.png, Image:User_Anja_Astor_sig_icon.png, and Image:User_Snograt_signature.png don't adhere to the letter, but it is very obvious what they all are for. When I chose a name for my own signature in April, Image:User_Dashface.png made the most sense to me, particularly in regard to file name length.

Would all former uses of these mildly-offending signatures need to be replaced retroactively, or could we just change to the new naming convention without altering previous talk pages? -- Dashface 10:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we shouldn't try to enfore the _sig-part of the image name. As long as it starts with User_<username>. AFAIK, there's no way to get a grouping of all images ending with _sig. On the other hand, it is a bit conform our policy on the guild cape name. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Imho no need to enforce a single exact name. 'sig' and 'signature' and 'sig icon' all are equally good. -- (gem / talk) 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe we should make it more clear that the "User <username>" part is the required one and the "sig" part is just a recommendation or so. - anja 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But file name will still count of the length ~ Kurd 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded that line for the icon name. As for the length limit, I deliberately avoided any hard limits on maximum length. It would be rather silly to tell someone to rename "_sigicon" to "_sig" because it's very slightly too long. -- ab.er.rant 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Imo the filename is not important as long as it starts with User Username. When I would make an icon I would rather name it Image:User Poke.png instead of something with "signature" or something.. poke | talk 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with enforcing that is retroactively going back and changing the links to those sig images on all the talk pages they are on. I know mine is on an awful lot of them... --Lemming 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would not even have a problem with Image:User Poke signature icon for all talk pages.png but personally I would prefer the shortest form ;)

And for old icons I would not see a problem with doing one big (bot) edit to change all old image names (I think we had a discussion about something like this some time before). We could make a list so anyone could add his old image names and then do an unique bot run to change all images in this list.. poke | talk 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Longer usernames

I believe I've come across some users who sign their comments with longer names than their registered username. Do we want to make a note about this on this draft too? For example, that it is allowed, but then no leniency is given for the 150px signature length? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, shouldn't the 'register the used name' be used in this case too? -- (gem / talk) 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I wouldn't mind disallowing the uses of shortened names, I'd rather not allow something like that. But if anything, any leniency for length is logically based on the user name. -- ab.er.rant 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why dissallow shortened names? Why make this any strciter than it HAS to be!? All that is really needed id for it to identify a person, and to link to their page, without disrupting text when it is used. Thats all. Personal preferences of what people 'wouldnt mind' shouldnt really have any effect. --ChronicinabilitY 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about restricting users. This is about protecting them (the whole clause on please-register-an-account-with-whatever-you-sign). If you decided to use "Chron" for your sig or "Chronicinabilities" for your sig, and you don't register those variant names, and I go and create an account named "Chron", there could well be a case of misidentification. So I'm all for using whatever you want to sign, but please make sure that name is undeniably your account. My reasons for not liking shortened signatures is because of this clause - it actually encourages people to create multiple accounts. But since that's an established norm already, I can only go along with it. And just to clarify this is a section asking about using longer signatures than their usernames, which impacts the length restrictions. My response to CoRrRan was not to change the length restriction to accomodate people who sign longer than their usernames. -- ab.er.rant 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok i did misunderstand there sorry. I also agree that using shortedned names should be registered and the linked to the main account. But that is just simply to keep the identification clear. I feel there should be as few controls over the sig as possible, while having just enough restrictions to keep it doing what it needs to without being disruptive. --ChronicinabilitY 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and so far, this draft is IMO quite mature. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Do not use characters that are not in your user name to represent the characters in your name. For example, substituting characters in a manner such as leet speak is discouraged as it makes it difficult for users to interpret." Hmmm, i'm confused as to this one, as far as i'm aware we have had no problems with this, and it seems unneccersary. Technically speaking my sig could be argued that it violates this by saying ChronicinabilitY for username Chronicinability (different character after all). Just seems like an un-needed restriction. If i'm missing something tell me. --ChronicinabilitY 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's meant to be against sigs like the one used by User:Mgrinshpon. I support this rule very much. -- (gem / talk) 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm, i guess thats a matter of prefernece though. I've seen him comment a lot of stuff and although i dont really know anything about him, i always recognise his comments because i recognise his sig. He does seem to have taken it to the extreme though. In my mind the most important thing is consistency. But the policy has ony 'suggested' not using leet speak so i have no problems with it in its current wording. --ChronicinabilitY 00:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it only suggests, not enforces, which is ok by me since otherwise it would just encourage fighting. -- (gem / talk) 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump!

I think this proposal had a lot of improvements. Anyone have any comments to push this through or any major objections? I know a few topics have been raised since the last edit that could be incorporated into this. - BeX 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything else is ok, but the transclusion section should be rewritten to be more understandable. Now it's not very clear that transclusion and sig pages are not allowed. -- (gem / talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now rewritten that part and agree with making this draft the official policy. -- (gem / talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. -- ab.er.rant 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Make this change already! :P Soon 4 months old.. - anja 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support from me. :) - BeX 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Xeeron 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support ~ Kurd 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I guess it can be implemented now. Anyone care to do it? (yes, I'm a lazy bastard :P ) -- (gem / talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No Gem we cant, were all waiting for you ~ Kurd 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this, but I like my policies clear. Words like "deemed" are not a good choice, as it leaves open who makes the judgement. Left unqualified it would be anyone, which is open for abuse. "discouraged" could be improved on too. Backsword 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this quote from the 'Failure to adhere' section: "With regards to the subjective elements of this policy, such as the misuse of formatting or colors and overly long signatures, all users are expected to comply with requests to modify their signature should there be multiple valid and reasonable complaints from several different users. Ignoring such requests may be construed as being in violation of this policy."

That takes care of your worry about the subjective 'deemed'. I've also changed the 'discouraged' to 'not allowed'. -- (gem / talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm now movingthis to policy. -- (gem / talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they don't. That's the problem, they are empty words. How about replacing them with "good faith"? It's not perfect, but I think it's close to what is intended. Backsword 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, that's a perfectly sense making part in hte policy. I'll formulate it to you in other words: "If multiple users ask you to change a disturbing element in your signature (and it's a reasonable thing), you need to change it or you will be violating this policy." Pretty simple and exactly what we want it to be. -- (gem / talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gem, what I'm trying to convey here is that "reasonable" (and "valid") have no meaning on their own. They need to be defined. Backsword 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

People of this wiki are mostly intelligent human beings. If multiple users request a change it is most likely reasonable, but a sysop also needs to agree with this if he is going to make the block. We don't need to define a word that is very understandable and can't be defined with some sort of very exact thing. The reasoning of the wiki users is required in every single case to see if the reasons are reasonable or not. -- (gem / talk) 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's what's meant, defining is easy: replace them with'and a SysOp agrees'. (And I'd assume all users are human beings...)Backsword 06:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'mostly' refers to the 'intelligent' part. :P And there's no need to put that in there since sysops are the only ones capable of blocking. -- (gem / talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The text would be for the benefit of the reader. I don't think that this is obvious to most users. Would it do harm? Backsword 06:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can support me with a fully written sentence that makes sense and doesn't change it's meaning, then please do so. -- (gem / talk) 06:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a "and a sysop agrees" is not acceptable. The general sentiment is that sysops do not carry extra weight, so a sentence like that would imply the contrary. To me "in good faith" is just as subjective as "reasonable".

That extra section came about in response to worries that certain users may have wittingly or unwittingly created a signature that's a bit too cumbersome or unnecessarily excessive in some manner. It is a soft clause that is aimed at letting users know that their user pages are not immutable and that should there be complaints (especially disruptive ones) regarding it, then there is this clause that makes it within policy to force a change. I don't believe it will be used often, but it is kind of a safeguard. I don't see a problem with the wording, but do suggest alternatives if you think they would better put forth the above idea. -- ab.er.rant 08:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Take this approach instead of the current "Failure to adhere" section: Any signature that does not meet these standards may also be replaced with a basic signature if the user has been informed of the precise problem. --Rezyk 10:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That would make it possible for someone to intentionally use a policy breaking sig, forcing everyone to just keep replacing all of his sigs with a valid one. The possibility to prevent that kind of abuse with a ban is a lot better imho. -- (gem / talk) 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean, as you didn't completely change it from talking about userpages and I doubt you think disrutive users should have extra say, but if the section is to be used at all we need to agree on what it means, which we obviously aren't when you find unacceptable what Gem finds obvious.

As for my first suggestions, factual claims about other persons are not considered subjective in the normal paradigm, so could you extend what you mean here? Backsword 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain again. That section was actually sourced from what I also wrote for the user pages, hence the confusion. Rather than trying to explain the meaning of the parapragh, I'll try to explain the motivation instead, so you get a clearer picture. Some users got concerned with overly unwieldy signatures, mostly opposing unnecessarily long signatures and/or unnecessarily gaudy/confusing ones. They wanted the policy to strongly restrict such signatures, so there were attempts at defining what it is that should be prevented. But given that it's quite subjective on what exactly is considered extreme, it kinda settled on a clause that would make it "legal" for other users to ask for a signature change should there be sufficient voices that agree on a signature's unsuitability. But we didn't want it too strict or too unfriendly, so it was kinda written using softer and more subjective words, as a fallback mechanism should there be a user who resists the community's requests/demands for a signature change. At least, that's how I understood it. Which is why I'd welcome any alternative that could make it less wordy and more obvious as to what it means, but still be friendly enough to some users and sensitive enough to other users. -- ab.er.rant 09:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is will understood. But problem would arise if this section actually needed using; the qualifying words are prsumable there to stop trolls from using it to cause disruption. Stricly demanding chnange whenever two users demand it, esp- with the possibility of cockpupets, cause bew used to harass most users. But the problem with the words is that they don't define anything by themself, so should we have a situation where two users did think a sig was problematic, but the user who's signature it is disagrees, how would we follow this policy? Currently there is no suólution at all, we would only get another argument, and since people would take it personal, a lot of drama. So we may as well remove the section. Which would leave the policy toothless.

(Still wondering about how far you consider the subjective to extend.) Backsword 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point too. That section was also meant to give the policy some teeth too, or at least, a little toothy stub lol :D anyway, I would disagree with removing it entirely, but for your example, if just two users complain, I wouldn't have bothered enforcing the policy. It's just too small a minority. Different admins would probably require a different number of complaints, but if I can see complaints/comments about the sig across multiple talk pages by at least about a dozen different users, I would request that the sig owner at least tone down a little of whatever it is that other users dislike. But yea, sockpuppets come into the issue, so it's all very sysop-dependent, which would then probably lead into a discretion vs policy argument. Perhaps the enforcement part really should be looked over from the start again. -- ab.er.rant 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)