Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Archive 2

User:130.58/sandbox

This policy makes much more sense to me and is much more in line with what I would support. --Rainith 22:22, 13 February 2007 (PST)

By semi-popular demand, I move it to the article. There are a few parenthetical sections that need to be filled in, and part of it needs some serious linkifying, but the gist of it's there. — 130.58 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Out of curiousity, how is a regular user supposed to know that their page is 100kb? I'm not objecting to the number at all but I'm curious as to how that's intended to work. I think a solid cap is good only on the basis that it will keep pages reasonable. I don't think, nor do I expect, people will become anal about it to the degree of "omg, your page is 101kb change it" but simply that if its obviously too large it will be brought up. That being said its late here and I'm way tired so mostly I just hope this all makes sense... Lojiin 22:40, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I suppose by adding all their pictures together. Not sure about the actual text part of it. It gives a warning when you hit 48kb doesnt it? - BeXoR 22:45, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Image:1024x768.gif - approximate size - it'll differ depending on your toolbars and style used. I can get rid of all the text and just make it a 2 color image. - - BeXoR 22:48, 13 February 2007 (PST)

It's the cumulative size of images not the page. --ab.er.rant 22:51, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I have a better idea than that picture. - BeXoR 23:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)

User:BeXoR/1024x768 User:BeXoR/1280x1024. They can be copied to "Guild Wars Wiki:User page/1024x768". Gives a rough outline, and is better than an image (filesize). I will check them in other styles in a sec. - BeXoR 00:10, 14 February 2007 (PST)

They all work width-wise on all of the skins available, in both resolutions (in default browser text size). - BeXoR 02:22, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Those are totally awesome. — 130.58 (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)

New proposal.

Posted. This is the last version of the old policy proposal, and this is the first version of the new one. — 130.58 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I really like this. Hope those favoring restrictive user pages would like the size limits. I attempted to expand on the stub areas highlighted, regarding the size, length and talk page restrictions. Can? --ab.er.rant 23:06, 13 February 2007 (PST)

By "Can" I mean is it ok? local slang :) --ab.er.rant 23:08, 13 February 2007 (PST)

"can" as a question is local slang here too :P you in hawaii? Aside from that, I /agree. I looked at my userpage images, and they fit rather well below 100kb (100kb is plenty enough... although total size at 100kb is pushing it). I'll just resize them more effectively next time. The rest of the policy makes sense. -Auron 23:11, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Nope, quite far from the Hawaii, far from the US as well :) I think 100kb is just fine as a total. We can have 2 different versions of our characters. The smaller pic on the main page, the bigger (slightly) pic on a subpage (if we're so inclined). And this also doesn't preclude you from using lotsa icons on the main page. --ab.er.rant 23:18, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I'm liking it a lot more now. Much improved =) Ale_Jrb (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2007 (PST)

What do people think of the specific sizes? I kinda just pulled them out of my ass. I think they're fair guidelines, but we could go bigger or smaller in each if you'd like. My advice is to bounce around Guildwiki a bit looking at user pages and comparing them to the guideline to see if you think it's appropriate. — 130.58 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Sounds good to me. --Xeeron 06:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)

100kb seems fine to me. I dont think the limit should be or needs to be any higher. - BeXoR 06:59, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree, 100kb seems fine. 08:26, 14 February 2007 (PST)

A 100kb total is too small. I mean, what's the difference between that and 200kb? 250kb? Why not a limit that nearly every image user is not going to bump their head on? -- Dashface 01:36, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Wow, I was away from the computer for almost 24 hours (valentines day with kalomeli ;) ) and you guys actually made an improvement with the policy AND everyone seems to accept it. I like the current proposal too. --Gem (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Might want to add something in about collapseable nab bars, cause they can potentially become a fix for those long pages. Is this okay or not? I personally would say it's okay, cause we already have a the restriction on maximum total image size. And that in itself should keep the page size down. 11:00, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Page length should be considered without the show/hide navbars as they do not work on all browsers and they might be disabled by users. --Gem (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Also, the show/hide stuff doesn't prevent your browser from downloading everything in the hidden sections when you load the page - so a massive amount of images hidden under a navbar would still take forever to load over dial-up. —Dr Ishmael 12:12, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Whoops, I forgot about the total image size restriction. Still, even if you only hid text behind the navbars, it's not impossible to turn the page into a dial-up killer. —Dr Ishmael 12:15, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Yup, I've modified the policy. Someone should add a link in the policy to some article (wikipedia?) explaining what the navbars are. --Gem (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree the proposel at it is now. This gives all parties involved in this discussion what they would like included, and is much more defined now. EMonk 12:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I don't like the length restriction. Images is one thing, but text? I like to write a LOT. I'll chop up my userpage for now, but I don't like it. AOTT 16:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the "restrictions" still allow every user to create a page containing a wealth of information about them that may be relevant to the wiki and interesting/useful for other editors to know; I also think that they are vital to prevent the user space becoming a GW MySpace. Tbh, I'm not interested in reading about other people's ingame characters. And I doubt many people really are. Huge userpages are just vanity pages. And AOTT - I can see you like to write a lot - but 99% of that is contributions to your userpage :P Fox (talk|contribs) 16:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As mentioned, you're not restricted to writing a lot of text in your user space. You just can't put them on the main user page. And so far, there hasn't been any convincing argument on why everything you'd like to put in your user space must be in the main user page. -- ab.er.rant 20:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Consensus?

Hmm, seems like we've got consensus, pretty much. I suggest we give it another day or two for people to review and comment on the policy, and commit after that if no new issues are raised. — 130.58 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I consider it a policy if no one has anything major to say before this evening. -- (gem / talk) 03:36, 16 February 2007 (PST)

I've read through the policy and it seems to me to be reasonable. LordBiro 04:03, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Sounds good. --Xeeron 04:17, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Get'r Dun! kaya 09:49, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Has my support. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Seems reasonable. Vlad 10:15, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Looks good to me. Lojiin 10:18, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Adding my voice to the support. --Rainith 13:24, 16 February 2007 (PST)

My main concern was the subjectiveness of the previous proposals. Props to whoever decided to quantify the main page restrictions using page-scrolls. Seems reasonable to me. I support the current version. -- BrianG 16:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Moved it to accepted policy. --Dirigible 16:35, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Images on user pages

The user Keiko recently uploaded a series of about 20 images for use on his user page, which raised some questions for me.

First of all, some of the images contained inappropriate material, including obscenities and sexual content. Those are violations of the existing user page policy, which is good. They don't appear to be violations of the existing speedy deletion policy, and I think they should be. Anyway, hopefully they'll get moderated soon.

Second, I find it interesting that we now have an image in the top-level image namespace named Gaile1.jpg, which is a screenshot of a text log of Gaile saying "poo". I read through the user page policy and there doesn't seem to be any limitation on users uploading a large volume of new images into the top-level namespace. Isn't there any way to put images under the user page namespace?

I feel uncomfortable about the aspect of users uploading personal content (unrelated to the wiki's primary mission of documenting the game) into a namespace that doesn't identify itself as being that user's personal content. If I follow a link to a page called "User:Keiko", then I at least have some idea that this is a user's personal homepage. But if I follow a link to a page called "Image:Laws1.jpg", then how do I know that this is a user's personal content, as opposed to part of the game documentation?

-- Mike O'Brien 22:11, 27 February 2007 (EST)

All valid points, but one can see what pages the images are used on by looking at the page for that image -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 22:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Back on Guildwiki, I always prefixed personal-use images with my user name (it wasn't a policy, I just did it to label them). Like "130.58.(image name).jpg" Anyone opposed to implementing a similar naming convention as full-on policy here? — 130.58 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Or all user page specific images could be put into a User images category. I don't know of any other way to separate images, I don't think they can have their own namespace (I could be wrong). --Rainith 23:26, 27 February 2007 (EST)

As far as I know, there's no way in MediaWiki to place images in a personal userspace, they'll always reside in the Image namespace. It seems to me, though, that this particular fragment from GWW:USER#Content restrictions would address that issue (clarifying whether an image is intended for personal use or official wiki documentation).

When uploading personal images, always name them appropriately and specifically, and preferably add in your user name as well. Do not use generic names and ensure that the image name does not coincide with any in-game names. The description of the image must also explain that the image is for personal use in your user space. Failure to adhere to these rules may result in your personal image being deleted without warning.

Personally, I think that part of the policy should be sufficient (of course, as long as it is enforced). If more is needed, both the suggestion by 130.58 (requiring the username to be part of the filename) and Rainith (a "Personal User Images" category) should do the trick. Or we could just add a tag to each of the relevant images (maybe similar in form to the copyright tag here). --Dirigible 23:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)

However about requiring both? "All images uploaded for personal use must be prefixed by the user's username and be categorized under 'Category:User images' only". -- ab.er.rant 23:46, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I support that wholeheartedly. I like del tagging unused images. BUAHAHAHA! - BeXoR 01:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I've got no problem with that. — 130.58 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Great idea! -- (gem / talk) 05:35, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I'm in favour of a {{User-image}} tag or something similar. This might not always be needed; perhaps only in cases where images have ambiguous names, or are linked to from prominent articles. It could also add the image to the category.

I do agree with Dirigible, though, that while Speedy Deletion may not cover the upload, I think that the User pages policy already does when it says "name images properly". LordBiro 06:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

So should the policy just be edited directly, or does this require a policy change proposal? -- ab.er.rant 23:53, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I don't know what the standing rules are, but, if we've got consensus, there's really no reason not to just change it around. — 130.58 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

There is a procedure described in Guild Wars Wiki:Policy#Changing policies that I think should be followed for this, including adding the proposal to the list there. It's important to give some sort of fair notification to users who don't monitor this discussion. --Rezyk 20:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A requirement to "prefix with your username" wouldn't prohibit these kinds of image names for user space images:

• Image:Alpha_screenshot_pirate_ninja_profession.jpg created by a user named "Alpha"
• Image:Devona_outfit_trick.jpg created by a user named "Devona"
• Image:Laws1.jpg created by a user named "Law"

These examples may be excessive, but I hope they still make my point. We may want to consider also forcing "User " as a prefix (so an image for my user space would have to be named something like "Image:User Rezyk pirate ninja profession.jpg"). --Rezyk 20:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Very valid points. I'll go and post a policy change request. -- ab.er.rant 23:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Policy change on user images

As per discussion above, this is proposal to expand the current policy on the issue of images uploaded for personal use. Specifically, to replace these existing lines (under Content Restrictions):

When uploading personal images, always name them appropriately and specifically, and preferably add in your user name as well. Do not use generic names and ensure that the image name does not coincide with any in-game names. The description of the image must also explain that the image is for personal use in your user space. Failure to adhere to these rules may result in your personal image being deleted without warning.

The proposed change is to reword the above into:

When uploading personal images, do not use arbitrary or generic names. All personal image names must be prefixed with the word "User" followed by your user name (for example, an image named "User Example my necromancer.jpg" is valid). The description of the image must include the template {{user image}}. Failure to adhere to these rules may result in the image being deleted without warning.

-- ab.er.rant 23:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

How about dropping "explain that the image is for personal use in your user space", and instead we do it for the user by adding a big equivalent disclaimer (or whatever) inside the template {{user image}}? --Rezyk 00:27, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. - BeXoR 03:41, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Removed the "and explains..." part from the proposed change above. Also, one other concern: if this were to take effect, does that mean all user sig icons have to renamed? It would make things very long, particularly those with long usernames. Also, in my case, should my prefix be "User Ab.er.rant"? Would the dots cause problems? -- ab.er.rant 07:24, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Periods should not pose a problem. As for sig images, They are not used specifically on User pages, and as that is what this is a policy for, I'd say they aren't affected by it. --Rainith 12:06, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Since I'm on a roll...how about dropping "do not use arbitrary or generic names"? I think it made more sense before (to avoid any user creating names like blah.jpg, 1.jpg, etc), but doesn't seem useful now on top of demanding the prefix (would anyone care if I make "Image:User Rezyk blah.jpg", "Image:User Rezyk 1.jpg"?). This is not a deal breaker for me, but let's push back against instruction creep here. --Rezyk 13:08, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I think that'd be best, yeah. — 130.58 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Mind giving an example image that follows that guideline too?--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:19, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with Rezyk and Vallen on both of their ideas. - BeXoR 13:29, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, there's a difference. We don't want to encourage generic names right? How about we use "avoid arbitrary and generic names" instead? It might create a proliferation of generic user images like "User Rezyk 1", "User Rezyk 2", etc. But it's probably just me so I'm willing to accept this change. -- ab.er.rant 21:52, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I'll support this proposal, with or without mine/Vallen's/ab.er.rant's latest proposed modification (preferably with mine =). --Rezyk 06:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I've made a basic template: {{user image}}. --Rezyk 03:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm gonna have a mess around with it in a bit if you dont mind (style-wise). I think "created" should be changed to "uploaded" though. - BeXoR 04:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, just make changes and we'll discuss them if we need to. --Rezyk 04:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It needs a link to the licensing info. - BeXoR 04:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

See it in action here: Image:User BeXoR EQN Cape.jpg. - BeXoR 04:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

(slightly off-topic, but if anyone can tell me how to change the filenames of my images to be compliant , I would be grateful. Added the template before it existed but there was no naming convention at that time :) --Snograt 04:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT))

Added the link to the licensing info, per your request. And Snograt, you'll have to re-upload the images, they can't be renamed (which sucks IMO, I wish they would make that change in the next version of MediaWiki). --Rainith 05:00, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thx Rainith. And yeah, I wish there was a move function on images. Oh well. :( - BeXoR 05:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Drat, I thought that was the case. Re-upload and tag the original for deletion, presumably. Heh, all us early adopters with .pngs in our sigs... --Snograt 05:11, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep in mind that this new template is based on the proposed policy change above which hasn't been put into policy yet. If you guys support or oppose that proposal, please say so. --Rezyk 05:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well it has been nearly two weeks without any opposition, I think it's fine by now to go ahead with it. BTW, as was said above, sig images dont really fall under this policy. Any naming conventions, templates or categories to do with sig images should be at GWW:SIGN. - BeXoR 05:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Should sig images use the same template or a new one? I would propose "Template:Signature image". -- (gem / talk) 06:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a signature image template would be necessary, as most signature images are just redirects to the user's page. Maybe add a line in GWW:SIGN suggesting adding all sig images to a sig image category? Even that isn't really a priority. The problems with user images were the amount, size and naming, none of which really affect sig images. - BeXoR 21:11, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

A problem with the user image template

I use the gem and heart icons as redirects and redirect images don't show any other content when you go to the image page, including the user image template. It still adds the image to the user image category though so it might not be that big of a problem. -- (gem / talk) 06:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed the same problem. I have all of my images as redirects back to my user page. There are two options:

1. Place the redirect before the template → the redirect words and the image is categorized, but the template text is not visible on the image tab.
2. Place the template before the redirect → the template is visible and the image is correctly categorized, but the redirect does not work.

For now, I'm living with the redirect not working. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not using the redirect is fine for non-signature images, but I think it's more important for signatures. To be honest, though, I don't think there's much we can do about this, and it's not an enormous problem. LordBiro 04:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User Image vs. user image

Just watched the Special:Wanted pages and noticed that a lot of people were calling Template:User Image which wasn't doing anything to their image, even though they were going through the effort of tagging them (albeit incorrectly). After changing a few images, I just made a redirect so that shouldn't be an issue anymore, if it really ever was. - Thulsey - talk 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy Restrictions

Too much...so much infact that it hurts. Why do you go and put a length restriction like that in there? I find it cramped, and frankly..it stinks... I mean, a few extra rolls of a rollerball never killed anyone, and besides not like we need to be super restrictive, after all, Arena Net has said they will host it for us. Why worry about size all the time... - Drago

Thanks for moving the conversation over here. Anyway, there are a couple of reasons, and they pretty much have nothing at all to do with fact that we've got plenty of bandwidth to play with on the ANet servers. It's actually a matter of courtesy to people with slower connections (yes, there are still people with Dial-up out there, it frightens me too), and it's to avoid some over-the-top userpages that we've seen in the past. Heh. Like that one with the 300-something userboxes, that was absurd. Also, the main userpage is what people go to when they want to know the basics about you, and they often, well, don't care about all of your characters =P The idea is to keep it short, simple, and to the point, and leave the less important things to subpages that people don't have to see every time they click on your name. As far as the image size limitation is concerned, the 100kb total limit was suggested on the last line of Archive1 of this talk page by 130.58 (sorry if I put the wrong number =P), and no one really disagreed with it strongly. I don't really care, I'm just summarizing what has been said up until now. Pepe talk 18:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

There were a lot of reasons for the limitations, some of them were listed by Pepe above. If you really want, you can read the loooooong discussionsin the archives. -- (gem / talk) 18:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I fully support the restrictions. It helps users with slow connections as well as those who are connecting from work to not be bogged down by large downloads when they click on a username, among other reasons. There are several ways to keep the page size down. Using jpg instead of png helps, or cropping / resizing images, or moving some content onto subpages instead of in the main user page screen. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I also support the restrictions. This is the GW Official Wiki, not the players' blogs. Some information is good to promote a community feeling, but going overdrive with it does little to help the Wiki itself. Erasculio 19:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

"a few extra rolls of a rollerball never killed anyone"

Well, a few less rolls of a rollerball never killed anyone either. :p As mentioned, the restrictions or not for bandwidth/space reasons, but for courtesy reasons. The policy isn't stopping you from having any long user pages, just not on the main user page. -- ab.er.rant 22:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Bandwidth concerns

As I see it, these are the primary concerns:

• Libel or defamation
• Material patently offensive to others, including ArenaNet's competitors
• Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions

I don't see any serious objections to the above. Then, one concern remains:

• Visitor's bandwidth

I feel that this is addressed in too many ways and too severely. From the policy:

• "Your entire user page should fit into three screens of a browser window at a resolution of 1024x768 (two full downward scrolls). This is roughly two screens (one downward scroll) at a 1280x1024 resolution."
• "All images on your main user page must not exceed 100 KB in total size. This speeds up page loading and prevents any needless downloads for users who are simply trying to get to your talk page or one of your subpages."

Why have a restriction on how many screens one's user page can take up? The bandwidth concern is already harshly handled with the image section. Do we really believe that someone will misappropriate bandwidth in this way? If so, why not limit how long the total the html code can be? Surely that's the true way to measure a page's length.

The tone of the policy is halfway between "I'm not interested in your user page" and "here are some tips on improving your user page". I don't see why we need to police boringness. Here are some examples:

• "It is acceptable to upload one cropped screenshot of each of your in-game characters, but uploading full galleries of all of your armor sets is not."
  • As long as a user stays within 100k, why is this applicable whatsoever? Maybe I want to have scaled images, and not cropped ones. Maybe I want to have small pictures of all of my armour sets and remain within the image guidelines.
• "Other users may not be interested in every detail of your characters."
  • Then they will stop reading or watching. If you haven't stolen their bandwidth too badly, why does this matter at all?
• "Avoid using design aspects that would be frowned upon in ordinary articles, such as garish colors, and keep the formatting user friendly."
  • Because? As long as I don't include libel, defamation, offensive material, or things that breach other policies, can't I have a page as garish as I like? If people don't want to look, they're more than welcome not to. Gee, some might not even be interested in the first place. The standard for regular articles is understandably high. Why must the have a policy mandating that we all create personal pages that would fit comfortably into the main space?

Then there's the 100k limit. Personally, I support a 250k limit, if not greater. If those with low bandwidth browse upon a high image page looking only for the talkpage or a subpage, the slow loading of images will give them ample time to click away before the whole page has loaded. This wiki already has articles with images in excess of 300k. -- Dashface 22:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I honestly don't understand the complaint with following the current guidelines. Subpages are still an option. Place larger content in subpage(s) and keep the initial user page as a directory or a summary page with links. It's a win-win ... the user still gets their content, the low-bandwidth users aren't bogged down. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Userpages have high visibility, which is a factor in deciding whether to put one's time into making an interesting one. Not putting one's effort into subpages is pretty much for the same reason that photos aren't mounted to the wall back-to-front. -- Dashface 23:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, remember that the userpages are a tool of the community, not a blog for the players. They are the main way for one player to search for information about another and to talk to him, through the talkpage there - it makes no sense to have such tool becoming worse just out of vanity. If it were not possible to make a good looking userpage with the current restrictions I would follow your complain, but we already have many examples of beautiful userpages under those limits. Erasculio 23:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

(Bloody edit conflict) So, are you saying that it's impossible to make something that looks good and still work within the restrictions? Because I'm pretty sure I'll have to disagree with you. You can make something that looks good, and still be considerate of others. Are you saying that someone that clicks on your name in a policy discussion, just to figure out who the heck you are, should be subjected to some of the rather absurd pages we had before this policy was finalized? Your user page is a place to express yourself, yes, but within reason. It's really (at least the main page) a way for someone who comes across your name to get a quick idea of who they're dealing with. To be fair, I put pretty much no effort at all into my userpage, and instead spent a fair bit of time making a couple useful subpages and surfing the RC feed, so I may not be the best person to weigh in on this subject, at least in terms of appearance. However, I do know what I'm looking for when I click on someone's name link, and it's not a gallery of pictures or three hundred-something userboxes. I guess my personal opinion is that the main page is more for utility than anything else. If you can make it look good, wonderful. Have a cookie. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that important - there are restrictions, yes, so deal with them. I guess my point is, sure, it helps the people with slower connections, but it helps everyone else too. I see no compelling reasons to change the policy. (also, I agree with everything that Barek just said =P) MisterPepe talk 23:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps it boils down to this: I'll help here and there when I have the time, but my userpage is my main interest. I don't plan to track my unlocks or hog bandwidth or make a million pages of scrolling; I just want a very small section of land. I have a so-called blog, so I know the difference, and it's a poor comparison to what most users set out to make. Video games used to fit on a floppy disk, and some of them were pretty darn fun, but everyone didn't come to the consensus that because a programmer could do so much with such a limited palette, it should stay that way forever. Heck, a lot can be done without pictures at all, but why? You see no compelling reasons to change the policy, but I see no compelling reasons to be so restrictive in the first place. Telling somebody that they can't make something because you don't want to look at it is not a very convincing argument. This policy and the signature image width policies (the latter of which my GuildWiki counterpart would not have breached) are the only two things holding me back from thinking, "Yes, let's give this rival wiki a chance!" -- Dashface 00:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

My main interest is contributing to documenting the game, and it should be the same for every other contributor to the site. I'm an editor using a wiki, not looking for a webhost. - BeXoR 01:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I have a gig of dedicated hosting and two gigs of advertisement-free image hosting. This is not about looking for a webhost. Yes, it would be nice if we were all LordBiros and Fyrens and Gems, but some of us are just non-vandal participants. Even a non-vandal participant can see the flawed logic in limiting the length of a user page (as opposed to the main page). Gordon Ecker's page was only 38k, pictures included, and yet this breached policy. My current user page, which fits easily without scrolling, is more bandwidth-intensive. Clearly, this part of the policy is not about bandwidth. What is it about? -- Dashface 02:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict)I don't think that admitting that your user page is virtually your sole interest in this wiki is going to win you any votes in your favour. Think of your main user page as a cover to a book or video game rather than the content of the game and you get a better analogy. The cover is always small but typically packed full of interesting information - the rest, the story, the game can be as big or small as you like. Why not make your main userspace page a cover which is truly unique that makes people want to click through to see what your Guild Wars experience is all about? --Aspectacle 01:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

(two edit conflicts, boo!) I wasn't going to get involved with this, but do you have any idea how terrible "my userpage is my main interest" sounds? How narcissistic and backwards that is? Here's the thing, this entire site exists for one and only one reason: To document Guild Wars. Everything else is and should be merely an afterthought to that. Talk pages = discussing how to document the game. Builds and guilds = documenting the game. GuildWarsWiki namespace = discussing how to better run the wiki to better document the game. Starting to see a pattern? Userpages are not your personal webpage. There's no policy on wikisquatting on this wiki, but that doesn't make this right nonetheless.

Your "hanging pictures on the wall" comparison is invalid, since there you are making the mistake of equalling the wiki to your home. It isn't, this is a working environment, with the editors working towards a goal. If you want to do a picture analogy, it'd be more like: This is an office, and we all have our desks; we don't place the pictures of our wife, kids and dogs on the walls, we have one or two on the desk, and if there's more, they're in a photoalbum, sitting in a drawer somewhere for those cases when a co-worker decides to stop by in his lunch break and try to socialize some.

No one is telling you not to come up with whatever crazy multi-page designs you want to do. All this policy does is merely keep all the excessiveness in your subpages, so those who don't want to look don't have to. "But there's more visibility on the main page" is bad reasoning, is the kind of reasoning that's suitable only for advertisers. If I come to your userpage and see a link "My characters", I have a choice to click on it or not. If I come to your userpage and get thrown pages of such content in my face, I'm not being given that choice. (Oh, and don't even think about saying "Don't come to my userpage then", since a userpage is virtually the only way there is on this wiki to know just who the hell the guy writing that message is; it's as much as a tool for the editors as Recent changes is.)--Dirigible 01:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I saved Tyria and Cantha and Elona, but I didn't do it for the citizens. I did it for myself, because I was playing a computer game. The idea that someone could be here for personal enjoyment should not be "narcissistic and backwards". I mean, if we don't finish the day feeling better that we've contributed to the wiki, what are we doing here? We're not getting paid for helping everybody else, after all.

I advance that this (and the other) entire site exists because of one and only one reason: most of the time we've gotten personal satisfaction for others ourselves.

Have a look at my GuildWiki page and ignore everything from "Unlocks" down. Would that be so unreasonable? (I commissioned that comic from Labsenpai, paying actual dollars for it. I had wanted to do something like that here, too.) -- Dashface 02:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I was originally supporting this policy as it now stands, but after seeing what kinds of user pages people had to scrap due to the policy, I'm willing to loose the restrictions. The page lengths is one too restrictive limitation, and probably the image restriction too. -- (gem / talk) 02:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and it doesn't sound too bad to me that the user page and its sub pages are someones main contribution. The point of a game and the wiki is to have fun and the user page is a form of having fun for many. -- (gem / talk) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem loosening page length - but I feel that image size and total size need to be restricted for bandwidth issues - that is a legitimate issue.

As to the argument that "my userpage is my main interest" is not a valid argument against this - you can still maintain your userpage within a subpage - there is no reason the user couldn't do everything they want within a subpage or even multiple subpages if they chose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mean a complete removal of the image size limit, just a little change to the number if it really is a hindrance to users. -- (gem / talk) 03:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I actually view extending the size limitation to be a hinderance to users with limited bandwidth, or those users connecting from work. This is not a theoretical problem, it is a factual inconvenience for users. As it is, there are many pages on GuildWiki that I avoid viewing from work for this very reason (Fyren's talk page being one of them). There are some articles here that I already need to avoid.

Also, thus far, I'm yet to see a compelling argument against using a subpage as a substitute - the only argument against it thus far basically boils down to the user saying they don't want to. In no way are they being blocked from the content they want (beyond individual image restrictions - which 100k for a single image is more than enough), only blocked from where extremely large content can be stored. On a subpage, they can get all they want, and users with limited bandwidth still have the ability to view the initial pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

(RI) I disagree somewhat. The game is for having fun, but the wiki is for documenting the game, though I do enjoy doing things on it as well. There are things that are fun about it, but it's primary purpose is not just for fun. Not really part of the discussion, though. Anyway, Dashface, Excessive? Not horribly. But, the question is where we draw a line, not whether we draw a line. If we've got a policy, which we do, we should enforce it unless it's changed. On the other hand, your page - it would be pretty easy to break that up into subpages, not even needing to get rid of any of the content and putting a couple links on the main page. No one who doesn't want to see it has to, and anyone who wants to see it has easy access. Why is this such a big deal? More importantly, having a decently strict set of rules on this keeps things from becoming excessive (which, in my opinion, many of the pages on GuildWiki are). To be fair, I'm not really sure why you have so much of a problem with this. It's restrictive, but you can still put everything you want to on here somewhere, anyway. Subpages are your friends. Might I be able to agree to a slight raising of the image size limits? Yes, possibly, because there was very little discussion on that part in the initial archives, but I think it's fine as is. Length, though, is the part that I actually care about. It forces people to be clear on their user page, which means I can figure out who the bugger hell they are without having to wade through character shots, fanfictions, or unlock lists. And to me, that's really all that matters as far as this policy is concerned. If the policy said to, I'd even be happy with just making it redirect to my talk page, because it's not a big deal. Of course, am I going to convince you, no matter what I say here? No. This is just what I think, and why - make your own conclusions. MisterPepe talk 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the policy about limiting shouldn't be removed, it should be capped, yes. But a higher cap is in order. Have a look at Gem's page User:Gem Doesn't look like it has much on it does it? 97kB (count the image sizes). The length policy should be scrapped as well, who cares if its longer than a few screens, if we have a reasonable cap in place it shouldn't if it has 10 or even 15 lengths. -- Scourge 04:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

97? Woah, need to reupload smaller versions. Back to business: 10-15 screens for a lengh limitations is way too long. I would support a maximum of 5 screens and a total of 150-200kB for images. -- (gem / talk) 04:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Dashface, I see absolutely no problem with porting your GuildWiki user page to here if you cut off the unlocks section. That comic is slightly too big but so is the resolution. A quick minor resize and it's well within the 100k. As for the length restriction, it's very clearly stated that it's a rough estimate. And honestly, when you remove the unlocks, it's just nicely about that length.

And you're right that we play games for personal satisfaction and we contribute to this wiki for personal satisfaction. I agree that there's nothing wrong with being a minor contributor who seems more interested in his or her user page (at least, with all the current policies as is). As such, like several others above, what I don't get is why you think such personal satisfaction cannot be obtained by making use of subpages? The general agreement so far is that a user page in the wiki is meant for providing background and contact details for other users; the restrictions try to support that. That's the general idea behind the restrictions. Don't just argue against; there should be points on why should user pages be allowed long? What are the sort of things that must be on the main user page that would make it long?

I personally have a long user page on GuildWiki and I don't mind doing it here again. But unfortunately, I also find the arguments against it to have very valid points, so I concur, since I'm usually the only one interested in my page, it really doesn't matter if it's on the main page or a subpage. -- ab.er.rant 04:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I take back what I said about 10-15 screens, (I just saw Blastedt's page. <-- Thats something that should have never made it onto the wiki imo -- Scourge 04:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Starting to realise why we had to make this policy? I can assure you that the GuildWiki is full of other good examples. -- (gem / talk) 04:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the current limitations. As mentioned, I see no reason why whatever it is an user wants to have could not be placed on subpages. By placing just a link (and we have here interesting pages that are like that) you give people the choice of whether to look or not at your content, instead of forcing it over anyone who wanders to your userpage. Erasculio 08:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply to various:

Should we draw a line? Yes, of course. I haven't suggested that a line not be drawn. In fact, I proposed 250k when I started this subheading. I also agree on enforcing policies unless they're changed, and I believe that this one would benefit from some (futher) slight modification.

Subpages are not really my friends. Sure, they're not without use, but if something is not relevant enough to go on one's main user page, then it's perhaps not important enough to read at all. (Yes, this is said much about much of the content on users' main pages, but if not even the writer values it enough to have it on the the main user page, to me that's pretty telling.) Subpages are hideaways for indulgent doings. The main user page is closer to saying, 'Here is some stuff that I think you might be interested in.'

My GuildWiki page, linked above, presents information about me in a very clear fashion. My in-game name is in bold at the very beginning of the page. That's it. I am a 23-year-old from Melbourne and my name is Hayden. Does anyone care about that? Probably not. If they want to contact me, they're welcome to post on my talk page or click "E-mail this user". I think that one's talk page and one's contributions are a better testament to one's true character if you really want to know who somebody is.

Gaile Gray inadvertently made a telling observation with the Design Gaile a User Page Competition on her talk page. She picks the following user pages on GuildWiki as good examples of the kind of page that she would like:

• Feather's page
  • This would violate the length portion if on Guild Wars Wiki.
• Aberant80's page
  • As acknowledged above, this would also violate the length portion if on Guild Wars Wiki.
• CarTune's page
  • This would violate the length and image size portions if on Guild Wars Wiki.
• 84.175's page
  • This would also violate the length and image size portions if on Guild Wars Wiki.
• Kalomeli's page
  • Though Gaile only mentions the borders, this page would also violate the length portion if on Guild Wars Wiki.

I understand some of Barek's image bandwidth pain, but I would suggest that if the difference is just 150k on a few pages, perhaps disabling images in one's browser would be a better user-specific option. -- Dashface 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

As said before, I would accept a limitation up to 200kB. -- (gem / talk) 06:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

So how do you determine how much kB your page takes up? I feel stupid asking this question but I've been trying to make my page condensed yet effective and I'm not sure if it's falling into the suggested guidelines (and how I can tell in the future when I change it). --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I meant the image limitation. It's easy to add the image sizes together to see if youare staying under it. Page size/length limitation should be pretty easily testable if it is 3 or 5 screen lenghts with a certain resolution. -- (gem / talk) 09:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

So then what about resized versions like on my page under characters? Do they still take up the same space on my user page if resized to 15px or does the resized version only take a few kB? I realize the linked versions still take up the full amount but had no idea of the effects of resizing.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 09:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Resizing images creates a thumbnail. In some cases the thumbnail can be bigger than the original file, so it's a good idea to test multiple size parameters. As for the file size limit, I've been restricted to dial up for the past few days and it has been PAINFUL. Increasing the size limit is unnecessary and no reason has been given as to why it benefits the community. Re-examine your motives and realise that a size restriction on the main user page isn't stopping you from being creative or showing personality. Just look at aberrants new page, and there are many others that have been created with ingenuity under these restrictions. Please be a little more considerate towards those who are less fortunate than you, especially when the reason behind the demands is so - vain for lack of a better word. - BeXoR 09:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing you are talking to Gem as I am trying to find out details about how to identify if my userpage does fall into the guidelines or not as a low kB page. As you have pointed out that the thumbnails are not the way to go then I may make tiny images of each one (like 1-2 kB each) that I wish to have and put a redirect to the larger image or a character page or something like that so that others (like you with your temporary dial-up) won't be bogged down with my vanity. Personally, I'm shooting for a <100kB and a goal of 50kB page but that will take some time to accomplish in the manner I want.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Vallen, according to the FireBug plugin for Firefox, your user page is 75 KB. LordBiro 11:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Cool. Thanks. :) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You can disable images in your browser and only allow them on pages where you need them. That's what I would do anyway if 100-200kB is too much. -- (gem / talk) 11:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

All of this still leaves an open question - what is the issue against using a subpage for the most or even all of the image content? With a subpage, bandwidth issues are satisfied on the primary page reached, and the subpage can contain the full content desired. I honestly fail to see any logical reason for the strong resistance that has been displayed to that approach. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Dashface, your argument that The main user page is closer to saying, "Here is some stuff that I think you might be interested in. is exactly the reason why the restrictions are requested to be there in the first place. There are alot of people who think that what you think is useful may not really be useful to them. The fact that Gaile pointed out those long pages doesn't mean that we should just relax the restrictions to the point where those pages become acceptable. Also, one more thing, do you actually have a user page design in mind that would violate the policy as is, and that it really cannot be altered to make it conform? Are you mainly against the length restriction, the image size restriction, or both?

But, like Gem said, let's just increase the image size limit and put a lid on this. I think it's been going on for far too long. -- ab.er.rant 12:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent questions, Ab.er.rant. Do you actually have a user page design in mind that would violate the policy as is, and that it really cannot be altered to make it conform? Are you mainly against the length restriction, the image size restriction, or both?

Yes. I would like to put a comic strip on my page. The image doesn't exist yet, but currently I'm thinking of something of about six panels. Compression is definitely an option, and I would pursue that even without image guidelines, but the more headroom I have, the better. I don't like to compress images to the point that there is a noticeable lack of quality.

I, personally, have no plans to exceed the currently-recommended length. It's just that the whole idea of regulated page length, understanding that the bandwidth concerns are addressed elsewhere, does not appear to be for any sound reason, and that irks me. I mean, we could restrict the use of the letter L to a maximum of three uses per userpage, but there's little real point, and it would be difficult to justify and enforce. So say somebody wants three hundred userboxes on his page. Waste of life reading them all? Yes, but who is going to bother to try reading them all? In practice, I don't see how that's any different from skimming a slab of text, except that a slab of text takes up less space vertically.

Unlike a Mountain Troll, I find fevered discussion to be draining rather than sustaining. I've voiced my concerns now, both for myself and the people whom this policy will affect in the future. There are twenty-one users who have already breached this policy at some point (BlackGeneral, Blastedt, ChaoticCoyote, Divinechancellor, Drago, Ekrin, Gordon_Ecker, Indian, Katscratched, Keiko, Kurd, Life_Infusion, Match, Murdoc, Oris_rhy, Pakuna, Rah, Renegade, Saranis, SK, and Y0_ich_halt), and I truly wonder if we consider every one of them to have done something unreasonable. -- Dashface 22:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I really do see your point. But the the idea is not that "you don't have to read it", the idea is that "you don't even notice it". It's about not slowing down page loading, and not being disruptive. Factors like loading speed and browser type comes into play. Is it really so unacceptable and intolerable to put your comic strip into a subpage? Because you want everyone who stumbles onto your page to load and see the comic regardless of whether they want to or not? A page with over 500k of images and several scroll lengths is, to some, annoying. You need to consider the opinions of that group of users, those who don't like it. How about coming up with a new middle-ground proposal? You can get more people to respond when you have something nicely spelled out. -- ab.er.rant 01:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

500k is, absolutely, excessive. I think Gem's middle-ground statements ("I would support a maximum of 5 screens and a total of 150-200kB for images," and "I would accept a limitation up to 200kB") are reasonable. While I personally don't see how choosing not to scroll down is disruptive, I seem to be alone on that point, so I'll drop it. Five screens and 200k will encompass an extra standard deviation, and I could both accept and work with that. -- Dashface 05:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

You are not alone on that point, Dashface. I've stayed quiet in this discussion because I wanted to see where it went, but I too believe that the page length restriction is unnecessary. If a page is below a certain size then who cares if it's ridiculously long? As long as it loads quickly then you can navigate away from it.

However, I don't necessarily agree with the change in the filesize limit, so I may not be an ally for you here :P LordBiro 06:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

And how does a regular user like me get to know how big my page is? I have simply no idea. Page length is easier to see. — Anja 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

@Dashface - My main issue has been and continues to be image size and trying to keep it from slowly creeping up - I've seen it before where it's argued one month that size x should be the limit ... then later size y isn't that much bigger ... then later still size z should be acceptable as it's not much bigger than y ... before you know it, the restrictions have grown several times larger to the point that they are either meaningless or non-existant.

As for scrolling, I actually haven't commented one way or the other on the scrolling down because a single image will often use more bandwidth than even three or four screens of text. I have no problem with increasing that limit - I could see that one going up to 3, 4 or maybe even 5 screens. It still seems reasonable adding some sort of restriction; at some point, even straight text becomes huge, such as this talk page is now almost 60k @ 11 screens on 1280x1040, that's an average of about 5k per screen. Granted, this is more packed text than will usually be found on most user pages - but it does represent an example of where text also takes up space, so some sort of limit is reasonable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been thinking about this since I posted above. How about, instead of a length limit we simply impose a restriction on the size of images AND text. The size of a blank page is about 99kb (see this blank page as an example). We could round that up to 100kb and say that the size of your user page, including images, should be below 250kb. You can check this kind of thing using a hard refresh in Firebug. I imagine other tools, like curl or lynx (maybe) would also be able to determine page size including images. LordBiro 14:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Imho, I should not need to download or use tools from outside of the wiki to be able to determine if my page follow the guidelines. If the user page watchers are ready to check all pages suspected to violate the policy with those tools, it's ok. But not to tell everyone and their brother to get them just to be able to follow the user page policy. — Anja 14:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone could use a tool such as [[1]]? Not that I particularly agree with arbitrary size restrictions. If a user's page is too big ugly and cumbersome then no-ones going to be visiting it more than once. A restriction to ensure the server isn't filled with 30 High definitition pictures of peoples characters is reasonable though Vladtheemailer 15:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Anja, what solution would you prefer? LordBiro 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for that link Biro, Wish I read this thread before I hand counted every image on this guy's page: User:InfestedHydralisk, his page is *drumroll* ~358kB. I'm pretty sure his huge pic isn't his own work too. And Biro if a blank page is essentially 100kb, wouldn't 250kb mean we're only actually getting 150kb to use for the userpage anyway? Not much more than what we have now when no one knew a blank page was 100kb :( -- Scourge 16:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

(ri)I like the current "scroll"-defintion. It's easier to understand (at least for me :P) and not many are going to read your page if it's too long either, so why have it long? But, with that simple tool someone just linked, I'm okay with size also. I didn't know it was THAT easy :) Checked my userpage, ended up in 75kb... Can that be true, if a blank is 100kb? — Anja 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The WebsiteOoptimization.com site, I linked, shows the compressed size not the uncompressed size so it is a good indication of bandwidth issues. Using that tool the blank page is about 64kb Vladtheemailer 18:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"if a blank page is essentially 100kb, wouldn't 250kb mean we're only actually getting 150kb to use for the userpage anyway?" - yes. I didn't say I wanted the amount increased, I only wanted to alter the way in which we calculated it.

That website optimization site says that my blank page is actually 65k... it's obvious that Firebug and this site must be calculating the figure in different ways, and I suspect it has something to di with me being both logged in and having slightly unusual settings, but I wouldn't have thought this would equate to 35kb! I could try and diagnose this, but I can't be bothered :P LordBiro 18:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

May be Firebug is giving the uncompressed size as this is the size the browser is interested in? Vladtheemailer 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't the problem with external tools be that they'll likely include the background graphic, the site logo graphic, and any other icons that may be in the notice bar at the bottom of the page when they tally the total size calculations - not just the user contributed content? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That's good actually, since when you load a page, you have to take those stuff into account anyway. And good idea, I support the switch to using total page size, and using 250k as suggested above. Mine's at a 110k :p. But should we put that website link? We might increase their server load by a lot, heheh. -- ab.er.rant 22:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Weird Question

not covered in the policy, but User:Eloc Jcg is basically starting up a builds namespace in his user space. Encouraging users to post builds there etc. Surely this is going beyond the use of a personal user space. --Lemming64 17:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Umm, nope.--Eloc 17:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not disallowed, but it sure isn't encouraged. Eloc, if you want to play with builds, why don't you stay at GuildWiki with them until we get a build policy here? -- (gem / talk) 18:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it is something I would actually encourage. It doesn't look like an entire builds space stuffed into one user space; rather, it's encouraging people to create builds in their own user space and use his pages to help track them. --Rezyk 18:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't check what Eloc is doing, but the following from Lemming64s comment is what I wouldn't like: "basically starting up a builds namespace in his user space" -- (gem / talk) 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, no, no. That is not what is happening. Go to User:Eloc Jcg and click on my builds. Then, click on any build and go down to the category that it is in and you will see. All I basically did was make my own category which people are free to put their own builds in there if they want to but they don't have to if they don't want to.--Eloc 18:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

In Eloc's words, "This page is instructions for adding builds to. By all means, feel free to add your builds to my Category. Here are step-by-step instructions to putting your builds onto my category for everyones personal useage" - sounds like what Lemming said (making a build section inside his own user page). Erasculio 18:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, this is a way to go around the build policy, but I don't care enough to make a fuzz about it. -- (gem / talk) 19:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Builds in namespaces is not problematic for me. Let me say why:

1. User namespace should never be linked to from the main namespace (or any other namespace with certain talk pages being an exception) and as such user articles are allowed more freedom, though we may have to reign in certain behaviour at times.
2. Having builds in the main namespace or creating a dedicated build namespace elevates the builds within to the level of "endorsed content" and as such it makes sense that some vetting procedure, or some rules for acceptance, must be implemented. This is arguably the source of all of the problems that the GuildWiki faces regarding builds; i.e. there are those who cannot agree on what the rules for acceptance should be, and there are those who argue over whether a build is acceptable or not based on those rules.
3. The most contentious builds are those that are not commonly used. While argument might arise from variants of popular builds, most argument spring from someone inventing a build and someone else saying it shouldn't be published for some reason. This is the source of the whole "no original builds" policy and its relatives.
4. Since articles in the user space are not linked to from the main namespace they are never considered to be officially endorsed (although they must meet some criteria for the sake of decency). Therefore there need not be any criteria for publication or deletion. This means the source of the problems that GuildWiki faces is removed.

I realise this may sound patronizing or simplified to those familiar with GuildWiki's build policies, but I hope you can agree that overall builds in someone's user space are really no different than posting character information in a user space. It is subjective information, but that information is not official so there is no need to delete it.

If you disagree I would love to see if there is something I have missed ;) LordBiro 19:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't understand what you mean...lol.--Eloc 19:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

My only worry is that something like that grows so much it becomes the unofficial "Official Wiki Builds Page", with all the ranting and name calling and flooding of the "Recent Changes" as seen on GuildWiki. That's very unlikely and I'm probably being paranoid, but still... Erasculio 20:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

But still? They are on peoples user pages.--Eloc 20:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What I fear is the problems we had in GWiki. Recent changes flood (but this time it can't be filtered as it's combined with the user name space) and hostility. -- (gem / talk) 20:38, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes but I highly doubt it would get so many people posting builds on my Category. Mine is just for the odd user that comes accross them. You would probably have to know me to some extent because it isn't in a simple like such as Builds like on Guildwiki. They would have to go to my user page and read the page about how to do it.--Eloc 20:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What didn't you understand Eloc?

I doubt that there would be anywhere near as many edits on user builds as there are on GuildWiki, since a build in the user namespace does not require anyone else to get involved with it.

For example, if Gem posts his Troll Farming build and adds it to Eloc's category, then what reason or right does anyone else have to alter it or to ask for it to be deleted? This is the reason there is such a problem on the GuildWiki. Because every man and his dog has an opinion on what would make a build better, or why a build is terrible and should be removed. I have no right to ask for Gem to remove his build from the wiki, whether this build is good or bad; it is in his user space and I have no say in what Gem puts there (provided it doesn't break policies). LordBiro 07:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, your correct. A user name space build section would probably get a lot less edits unless the users implements rules of his own for vetting etc. -- (gem / talk) 12:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, I am not going to add my own Vetting system. Everyones builds are welcome.--Eloc 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Custom skin remote links

ArenaNet recently brought up this issue in the mailing list (posted with permission):

---

Our IT team has pointed out something that is a potential security issue, and I’d like to throw it up for discussion with the hopes that we can get some kind of a policy in the works to outline and solve the problem.

As you guys probably know, several of the members in the community have begun to make custom wiki skins for use on the Guild Wars Wiki. While we think that this idea is both fun and creative, there are some issues that have arisen from the new creations that we should address sooner than later.

The primary issue that has arisen is due to several of the user skins linking directly to images on the Guild Wars website. As an example, view this user skin. Our systems are detecting this type of remote image linking as an XSS security threat, which is of great concern to the IT teams who constantly monitor logs for issues like this. While these links obviously aren’t true threats, the fact that they are appearing as threats could pose a problem for us. If dozens of user skins start to follow this pattern (which many do from borrowing code from others), imagine how many alerts we’ll receive from this type of “threat” over time.

This also opens up another issue of concern, which is the potential for users that may not know better to remote link images called in their skins from other, non-Guild Wars sites. Not only does this open up the potential for a large security threat, but this also will pose problematic with our licensing.

A simple solution to these issues would be to inform wiki members that they will need to save images that they intend to use in their skins and upload them to the wiki itself (as many have already done). This will not only eliminate the above issues, but it will save on page load times by cutting out the extra hop it would take to remote link to images on other servers.

It seems like the best step to take from here would be to draft some kind of a user skin policy, discussing and outlining some of the following points:

• All images used in wiki skins must be uploaded to the wiki, even if they are found on the Guild Wars website
• No skins should remote link to any content found on any other website
• We’ll probably want to either ask that users put their skin images in their own user spaces (if they decide to keep their skin’s code in their user space), although I think this is something you guys can decide

In my opinion, getting a policy like this going may do wonders to not only prevent issues in the long run, but to give curious and creative users the extra encouragement to contribute to the wiki in new ways.

---

It was decided to post this here for the community to discuss. --Rezyk 19:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure you could have summarized that Rezyk :P LordBiro 19:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The solution is pretty much there, set up a policy about user skins/themes and outline the limitations the users have when making a custom skin. The bullets points listen in the email are a good start already, except for the last point, that needs more input :P -- Scourge 20:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Even without the security threat alerts issue it makes a lot more sense to host the images used on the wiki. Also the bonus with a policy is that well made popular skins could be set as options in a users preferences. --Lemming64 20:26, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I allready asked User:Smurf to change the images of his popular skin to the wiki, but a policy is definitely needed. -- (gem / talk) 20:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A note about not hotlinking images has been added to Guild Wars Wiki:Image use. --Rainith 22:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Great. -- (gem / talk) 04:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Users not listening

What do we do with users that dont listen or are just innactive while leaving a Userpage with not-allowed content. ~ Kurd16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I would say that it is not urgent to take any immediate action in these cases. If a user is not active and has contributed little then their user page will (probably) get quite little traffic. If their only offense is that the page is too long or some other similar violation then I think we can leave a message informing them and wait a while. I wouldn't want to say how long a "while" is, but I would say it would be measured in months rather than days.

There are some situations where I would encourage action though. If a message is left and a user is active, i.e. they still contribute to the wiki but they ignore the message, then I think some action should be taken. And it should go without saying that if the user posts some illegal content then immediate action should be taken. LordBiro 19:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been following the user page policy and deleting any images which break the image policy with wrong naming. -- (gem / talk) 12:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk page restrictions

In the section on user talk pages, the polciy states "Do not apply any special formatting to either the talk page or your comments." Personally, I read that to mean not to use anything that alters the normal formatting of the text (ie: don't structure the active talk page with colored text or background, don't use boxes or special header formatting to split subjects in the talk page, etc) - but I did not read it to ban navigational aids on talk pages. But, I wanted to verify that others read it the same way. If the header at the top of my talk page is viewed as violating the policy as it's written now, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Like I posted on what ever talk page this was discussed on, I think it only disallows something that alters everything posted on the page like font, formatting, a table, etc. The navigation aids, archive boxes etc are allowed and don't present a problem at all. -- (gem / talk) 11:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah. I always thought it meant something like this. Although I must say that looks pretty nice :P --Santax 11:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea it looks nice, but rather confusing as to whether that is really a talk page or a user page. Anyway, how about rewording that sentence as Do not apply any style formatting to the comments on talk pages. The only exceptions allowed are user signatures (governed by GWW:SIGN) and illustrations or explanations on a formatting design. -- ab.er.rant 02:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Notice that I specifically mentioned the comments (which should mean the general discussion area right?). This should imply that navigation bars and such are fine. -- ab.er.rant 02:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Is what I've done to my talk page, necessarily "style formatting to the comments"? Its just a box around the comments. I'll happily remove it if anyone has a problem against it though -- Scourge 04:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

This rule was introduced specifically against such boxes like I aid earlier, so yes, you need to remove it.

I don't think we need to rewrite the note though, atleast the suggested modification isn't an improvement imho. -- (gem / talk) 05:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Deleting stuff from your own talk page

Question: Why aren't we allowed to delete stuff from our own talk page? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Because some people do it to blank certain unfavourable stuff like a warning from an admin etc. -- (gem / talk) 15:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

But then it would still be in the history. The reason I ask is that I don't want to save useless stuff like: "Hey, you forgot to add in X line of text" and a response from me like "Thanks, fixed it". So far my talk page is mostly that kinda stuff and I don't really see a need to waste space keeping it. Are there any exceptions?--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Just archive it then :P Fox (talk|contribs) 08:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

That still just sweeps it under the carpet. Why not make space and delete uneeded junk? I'm just asking. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Going through archives is a lot easier than the history. Space isn't a problem. -- (gem / talk) 11:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "make space"? Deleting stuff will not free up disk space, as the content is still saved. --Rainith 12:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I meant "make space". It would save space as it is duplicated in 2 places, the archives and the history. yes/no? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

And scrolling through an archive page is a hundred times easier than checking every single revision in a user's history to make sure he hasn't deleted anything of importance. =\ --Dirigible 12:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the only good reason I've seen so far but then again, why bother keeping a bunch of junk to scroll through in the archives too? This discussion is fun even if it's not productive. :) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, how do we decide what is junk and what isn't? Do we leave it at the discretion of the user? *deletes the admin warning, 'tis just junk* Even leaving malicious intentions aside, the perception of what "junk" is varies from person to person; someone might consider all issues that don't involve banning or deleting half the wiki trivial and worthless to keep, while another might consider important even those "Hello!"s. I'm probably one of the latter, I think there's real value even to those one liners "hey, you forgot to add X to Y article". The way I see it, your talk page is where the rest of the community is directly communicating with you, and I think you can probably tell more about a person from his talk page than main user page, (polite or rude? needs to be told something a million times or reacts to feedback? careful or careless with his edits?, that kind of thing). --Dirigible 16:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Main user page length limitation

Although I was originally one of the main supporters of the length limitation as it now stands, seeing it in action for some time now has made me change my mind. I think that the limitation is too restricting at the moment, and so do many other users. I'm surprised none of them, for example tanaric, has started this discussion yet.

What I propose is changing the limitation of 3 creens at 1024x768 to 5-8 screens at the same reso. -- (gem / talk) 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing myself, I never read a userpage that is more than 3 screens, but I don't want people to restrict their pages just because I don't read it :P I support allowing more lengthy userpages. - anja (contribs) 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For plenty of reasons (to be found in the archive), I fully back the removal of user page restrictions. Never wanted them =) --Xeeron 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping mine short regardless but I support lifting the length restrictions altogether (and adding it in to be "within reasonable length) but not just lengthening it a few pages. If someone gets out of hand, then an admin can ask the user to shorten it a bit as it would be up to their discretion. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By just saying "reasonable", it'll never be "unreasonable" to some people. As a policy, subjective measure like that doesn't really work. Either we have a specified restriction, or we don't. But regarding this proposed change, after all we went through to arrive at this, I am against such a change. Are you sure you want to restart the "my user page should be free to have anything I want in it (within policy)" versus the "my user page is where you find out a bit about me and contact me" debate again? -- ab.er.rant 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I keep hitting my head on 100k. -- Dashface 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't about 100k. -- ab.er.rant 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against this change. The arbitrary limit is stupid, but it at least works in keeping peoples' pages within reason. People just can't be satisfied, and that is a very sad thing indeed. - BeX 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the change too. Any information that can't be put in 2~3 screens is not worth it for me. Sure everyone wants to put all of his 9 PvE characters up on his userpage, including all of the treasure-chests he/she has opened, but is that information I want when I look at a user page? Not really. Usually most of the information is for the user himself, and a smart user can create all the subpages he wants within his userspace. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth it for you? Don't read it and the problem is solved. We've got an ultra-harsh image restriction that makes sure that very little of your bandwidth is consumed, so is this not a case of personal preferences dictating what should be someone else's userpage? (I don't like irrelevant real-world references on userpages. We should legislate against that!)

Our currently policy allows as many character profiles as you like if you shrink the text enough. (Thirty-five characters multiplied by the number of accounts you have?) Why would that be permissible when making the text normal size is not?

If necessary, I would prefer to measure a page's code length (or load size) rather than scroll length. Limits, sure, but we're flyin' economy at the moment. -- Dashface 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the change. It's due to my personal view of what a userpage should be, which is a resource for other editors on the wiki. If you want to put other things, I fully agree with making a subpage for it (I've got a couple pretty long subpages, myself), but it's unnecessary information to include on the main userpage. If people disagree with that, they're entitled to their opinions, but I disagree with this proposal primarily because of this philosophy. Of course, the archives have multiple versions of this discussion... MisterPepe talk 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone stop to think what image ANet might like to portray? This wiki's pages are accessible in game now with the addition of /help or /wiki afterall. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From the lack of response from Anet regarding user pages (aside from being concerned about any legal issues), I'd say they're are not really concerned about this policy. -- ab.er.rant 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So why do we need to make this into such a big deal. Either leave it or lift it, don't tweak it IMO.

It seems to work fine the way it is now so why fix it if it's not broken? I take back my previous comment on lifting it as I think this policy is fine as is and there's no need to change it. There's no need for lengthy user pages and the user can always make lengthy sub pages if they want. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's working well if multiple users keep complaining all the time. What else could even mark that the policy is bad than complaints?

Many users here usr the argument that user pages should only include information about the user, not their characters, but the length limitation doesn't affect that at all. If that is what you want, why don't you want a policy that disallows character info? It was suggested earlier and scrapped.

Also remember that the page length limitation and image size limitation are two different things. I didn't suggest touching the image size limitation to keep main user page load times fast. -- (gem / talk) 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the same opinion as Dashface that page length limitation is somewhat ridiculous given that you can still cram all the stuff you want into that small space. Page length is being used because it's the easiest way for users to check. Wouldn't longer pages make it possible to cram even more stuff into the page? I'm willing to scrap the idea of page length and use page size as a limitation if there's an easy way to check policy violation. -- ab.er.rant 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and additionally, for those against lifting restrictions on user page, would you reconsider if we change GWW:SIGN to state that all signatures must link to talk page? -- ab.er.rant 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or "if you exceed specification X, you must have a talk page link in your signature". (I still believe in a specification X2, a limit that is not infinity.) I don't think that LordBiro or Dirigible or a brand new user should be required to link to his or her talk page, but I don't see why anyone with a customised signature wouldn't link to their talk page anyway. -- Dashface 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A required link to talk page in your sig might be a good idea. I support that change. -- (gem / talk) 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly on this issue, and I can see the advantage. Would we penalise (future) new users for not adhering to this change? Is there any way to change the default signature for all users? -- Dashface 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

would just like to say that I also disagree with the change -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dashface's proposal

User images

Uploading images for personal use in your user space is allowed, but do not upload large images (anything over 100kb 250kb). It is acceptable to upload one cropped screenshot of each of your in-game characters, but uploading full galleries of all of your armor sets is not recommended encouraged. When uploading personal images avoid using arbitrary or generic names. All personal image names must be prefixed with the word "User" followed by your user name (for example, an image named "User Example my necromancer.jpg" is valid). The description of the image must include the template {{user image}}. Failure to adhere to these rules may result in the image being deleted without warning.

Main user page restrictions

Since many users are going to be looking Because users are more likely to look at your main user page than your subpages, additional size restrictions apply.

All images on your main user page must not exceed 100 250 KB in total size. This speeds up page loading and prevents any needless downloads for users who are simply trying to get to your talk page or one of your subpages.

Your entire user page should fit into three screens of a browser window at a resolution of 1024x768 (two full downward scrolls). This is roughly two screens (one downward scroll) at a 1280x1024 resolution. See this template for a size reference. If content you wish to post to your user page exceeds these limitations, please create a subpage or reconsider posting it altogether. Present and maintain this information within reason. Other users may not be interested in every detail of your characters. If you have a great deal of information that is only for your own reference, consider storing it on a subpage.

You may not attempt to circumvent this length limit by using a combination of HTML and style sheets to collapse and hide sections of your page. The fully expanded length of your page must comply by this restriction. Please bear in mind that not all browsers support such special rendering and that users may choose to disallow such rendering on their browsers. Also, if your main user page redirects to a subpage instead, that subpage must adhere to this policy as well.

---

What this proposal addresses:

• "Other users may not be interested in every detail of your characters" and "reconsider posting it altogether" are very unwelcoming and not all that appropriate. It is not the purpose of this policy to make sure that people are not boring.
• The scroll limitation is not relevant to anything.
• With 250kb for both the maximum size for one user image and 250kb total for the main page, this should cover most eventualities. If a slightly larger image was required—a fullsize screenshot in a talk page discussion for instance—we might also consider allowing slightly larger images as long as they were only displayed as thumbnails.
• If a user wants to use no more than their allocated image space, there is no reason to tell them that they cannot upload full galleries of their armour sets—one character in eight armour sets should be no different than eight separate characters as far as this policy is concerned.

I don't anticipate overwhelming unilateral support, but do we have some common ground here? -- Dashface 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Subpage inclusion = watchlist friendly if you're going to be making regular edits to non-essential information. As for the rest of your proposal, it is fair and not excessive while still being considerately (not considerably) restrictive. But will this be enough to keep all the demanding people happy? It had better be. ~_~ - BeX 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

=P I'm against this. I'm okay with the image size increase (I know we've talked about it before, and it's not a huge increase; though we do have people on dial-up still - ugh). As I've mentioned before (and other people as well), I take the view that a userpage (the primary userpage, at least - subpages are a different story all together) is an editing resource. When I click on a user page link (which, typically, I only come across in talk page discussions), it's to find out more about that user. I'd like to keep the page length limitation in place. Basically, Dashface, this proposal gets rid of most of the purpose of the restrictions and policy that we created in the first place - while I understand that the image size limitation has been irritating for a decent number of people (though, TBH, I'm not sure I get why that is ; a decently-sized character shot takes up 10-15kb, but I accept that it bugs people =P).

It really comes down to, at least for me, the fact that this proposed change gets rid of more or less all restrictions. According to this change, I could post the entire text of Moby Dick and the first five cantos of Paradiso, as long as I didn't post too many screenshots of said works of fiction. The scroll length limitation is relevant, at least in my opinion. According to this change, I could post my entire User:MisterPepe/MonkWeaponSwaps article on my main page - and I think there's a pretty good reason to relegate that sort of thing to a subpage.

As I mentioned earlier, my philosophy of userpages is an editing resource for other wiki contributors. There is really no reason that extra information cannot be relegated to a subpage - even if it irks some people to do so. On your userpage, I'm trying to figure out who you are and what you do on the wiki - and, to be honest, I don't really care how armor sets your character has, and I don't want to read your latest sordid Gwen fanfiction (=P from the Builds discussion).

My suggestions? Keep the scroll limitation; while I don't like the image size change, it's a pretty small change. Considering how much people want an image size increase, I guess I'm okay with giving it to them. I'm going to stick to my guns on the page length thing, though - it's really the only way to quantify length, and there needs to be some sort of limitation on that. I'd like to also suggest a couple changes in verbiage - in the first paragraph, "not recommended" would probably be better as "not encouraged." Assuming that a length limitation remains, most of the items in the second and third paragraphs would remain as-is.

As usual, it's just my opinion =P I'm sure people will disagree with me, but here it is ;) MisterPepe talk 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know why it seems like it's a removal of most restrictions? That's because I think Dashface really would rather get rid of the whole altogether :P It's getting a little bothersome to be arguing about this again. I can't really understand just what is it about main page length restriction and subpages that so irks people. I don't like changing this policy (especially after telling so many people to shorten their user page), but since you proposed, I'd like to point out that using "within reason" makes for a weak and subjective statement; which is why I've always favored easy-to-verify restrictions. If I wrote some fanfic as long as Moby Dick + some Paradiso (whatever that is) and decided to post it all on my user page, is that reasonable? I'd say yes, but what if MisterPepe thinks it's not? But for the sake of really really really resolving this (at least for some more months), would page scroll +1, max image size = 250kB, max userpage size = 250kB be acceptable? But then I expect someone to raise the point that if we could loosening it, then there's really not much point in having it anymore. Which is why I suggested that it's mandatory for a talk page link, for people to avoid the main user page. -- ab.er.rant 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to keep the scroll limitation, but not as strict as it is currently. You should also add "If your main user page uses inclusion of subpages, the content of those subpages is treated as actual content of the main user page." -- (gem / talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What comes to loosening restrictions versus removing them, there is a huge difference. loosening them would prevent posting Moby Dick, removing them would make it possible. -- (gem / talk) 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be okay with pagescroll +1 (though I'd still rather not, it's a losing battle =P ). I just want to make sure that there's some sort of limitation in place to avoid said "Call me Ishmael." =) Though, of course, that does bring up the question of that being a page in 1280 or in 1024... Heh. MisterPepe talk 07:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Ab.er.rant - it's a reference to wikipedia:The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. The most famous part of it is Inferno, which records his trip through hell (it's where the idea of the circles of hell comes from). Paradisio is about the layout of heaven itself ;) Too much information? MisterPepe talk 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The scroll limitation is stupid, frankly. I know that it gives us a rough guideline, but it really is a crappy way to measure these things. I do agree with your other points, Pepe. I also believe that your userpage should only be used for wiki related things, but people won't accept it. :/ I thought subpage use was a fair enough compromise but people have to push and push and push! - BeX 08:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

=P Have a better way to measure page length? MisterPepe talk 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone in the earlier discussion had a widget of some sort that could measure the page size. Or there is always a word count/saving page to HD... There has to be something better than scroll length because you can just make your text tiny. - BeX 11:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki software certainly has the ability to measure page size - Special:Longpages and Special:Shortpages are good examples. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

MisterPepe, your example is a fairly long page, but it is still one kilobyte smaller than Ab.er.rant's main page (excluding images). (That took a while to calculate with all of those inclusions. And by the way, it is indeed a nice page.)

Ab.er.rant, I suppose that Moby Dick wouldn't be copyvio, and you're right that, by not limiting page size, a userpage could theoretically run into the megabytes and still be within policy. However, that is already where we are at. I could comment out five megs of (still-loaded) text and be within the amount of scrolls currently specified. I don't support removing all restrictions, and I hope I haven't said that so far. (From a quick check, I haven't.)

Have we had any user code-length problems before on either wiki? Should we consider a kilobyte restriction on code-length just in case anything crops up? I cannot possibly imagine that anyone would ever use over 50kb in code-length in good faith, and I cannot find any user pages that are currently even close to that number. -- Dashface 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dashface, your proposal had no limitations on length, and pretty much the only thing you left limited was image size, with a much larger limit than the way it is now. =P Hence my comment about more or less removing all the restrictions - at least in this proposed section, you pretty much have.

I'm not worried about code length, really. I don't like excessively long pages. Of course, the mediawiki software does start to give warnings at 25kb (not counting pictures), I believe - some browsers have difficulty rendering pages that go above that limitation. I'm not really worried about that; 25kb is a massive amount of wikicode when pictures are discounted. Even if something fits in a code size limitation, though, it'll still be a freakishly long page. That's what I'm against, rather than the code length.

On a page that long, I can't find what I'm looking for (information about the editor and resources for wiki editing) without having to read through all that junk =\ It's less a matter of being worried about peoples computers and loading speed as it is convenience for other editors on the wiki. Of course, considering how much difficulty you had calculating the page size (in code) of those two pages, it doesn't really seem to be a good way to measure it. The scroll length limitation (measured in screens) is a fairly simple way of implementing a restriction on page length - the code length really doesn't matter, as long as it stays within decent limits. As I mentioned, articles nearing 25kb in size (just the text/wikicode is counted) have, at least in my experience, popped up with a warning about browser compatibility (it happens on Talk:Main Page all the time), so we may want to consider adding a second restriction on length due to compatibility issues, but it's really not a substitute for a pagelength limit, especially considering how difficult it is to measure. MisterPepe talk 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No Dashface, I also wasn't implying that you suggested removing these restrictions, but I distinctly remember someone said (somewhere else I think) that such restrictions were superfluous. And yes, so far, we haven't seen any Moby Dick-style user pages.

Anyway, it seems that both restrictions guard against different things. Scroll count guards against needlessly long user pages. Total size guards against unnecessarily large downloads. Mention both? The only problem with a total size limitation is that it's likely nobody will bother checking. But a mention is better than none I suppose. Hmm... would something like a clause saying "if several users started complaining about the length or size, then the user page must be shortened or trimmed" be workable? -- ab.er.rant 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it would be better to mention both, length and size, with fairly high numbers (5 pages / 500k or something like that). I don't think one single user will start a moby-dick-style userpage but if someone does, we have the policy and can say: "No!" Otherwise the user could say: "Why not? It's not forbidden in the policy." and we would have no right to restrict him. So I think better a limit that isn't checked than no limit without the option of some control. Der moon 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

=\ Those numbers are somewhat excessive, Der moon - half a meg of images? Ugh. Seems like too much of an increase in page length, too - IMO, of course.

Ab.er.rant - while the spirit behind that suggestion makes sense, it's too vague to enforce. We have to have specific, measurable guidelines - and saying that it depends on who complains is completely subjective =P As I mentioned, there is the artificial limit of 25kb on a page's code (yes, you can go higher, but that limits usefulness). I'd suggest that images be kept under 250kb (total on the page), page size be kept under 300kb (including images, yes, I realize that that's more than 25kb, but it's a round number. I like round numbers), and page length kept under 4 scrolls (1024 resolution). It's an increase in each restriction, and it adds a measurable (even if it's a pain to do so) rule for page size. Unless someone can figure out a better way to measure visible page length than scrolling, I think that's the only way to do it - as we've figured out here, page size does not necessarily have anything to do with the page length (especially when using esoteric tabling or comments =P).

All these regulations would apply only to the main userpage, of course. I'd still rather not increase anything here, but I can see there's enough people that want an increase =P MisterPepe talk 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just put in some numbers - the 5 was nicely looking in the center of the numpad, so I wrote 50k and as this was less than actually talked about, I just added a zero. So don't take my numbers honestly - just replace them with numbers you want. BTT with real numbers: 250kb for images is more than sufficient but as an empty page has about 60kb/100kb (dependend on the method of calculation - compressed/uncompressed), I think it should be something in the area of about 350kb compressed total transfered page size. 4 scrolls should be OK - if someone uses 5 we shouldn't complain too much. Der moon 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI)Yeah, okay, 350-400kb makes sense - I'll let someone who actually looks at page sizes (unlike myself =P) figure that part out. (I'm sticking to the 4 scrolls limit, though) MisterPepe talk 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you create an article in the main namespace that big? Any large images would be replaced. - BeX 02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

4 scrolls is still silly. It doesn't solve anything. If you're worried about fast load times, wouldn't it be more prudent to worry about page size in KB, and not page size in scrolls? -Auron My Talk 12:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be if we had an easy way to check the size. Is there a mediawiki extension available? -- (gem / talk) 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said before that I don't care about fast load times, and that I want shorter page lengths instead. Page length != page size, as we've covered in this discussion already. I want to be able to find information on the page, and I don't want to have to go looking for it through massive amounts of text/pictures/tables/lists of elites/etc.

Gem, I figured out that the Lupin Popups have a page size measurement built into them, which shows that that "60-100kb for an empty page" thing is bunk. That massively long article I linked to earlier is only 10-11kb. MisterPepe talk 18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like a reasonable page lenght limitation and a reasonable page size limitation. The length limitation would be good at 5 screens imho, but I'm not sure about the size limitation. -- (gem / talk) 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An empty page also has some images. The page itself has about 4-5k, but the images are pretty big. The background is 17.4k, the image in the upper left is 30k. Another 2k takes the "powered by..." and 2k for icons. This sums up on about 56k. And these sizes are compressed sizes taken out of Firefox's page information. So with 250k for pagecontent (including images) we have a limit of 306k total page size. So I would say: 300k for the complete mainpage including images should be more than sufficient. Der moon 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. -- (gem / talk) 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the length limitation, while being measured stupidly, is a good length. Anything more than 2 page scrolls at this resolution is being silly. ~_~ You're far better off breaking that information into subpages. Anyone who bothers to read your page would have lost interest at that point anyway. :P And as for a bigger limit, Der moon is being reasonable enough, 300kb total go for it, but the page length better not be increased! I just want to make sure someone includes this into the policy: if you plan on updating a section of your main userpage regularly (i.e. with title information - 38999/50000 sunspear infobox, etc), put it on a subpage and include it into the main page so that those trivial edits don't show up on peoples' watch lists. Even if you put your whole userpage and inclusioned it, that would be even BETTER. XD - BeX 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the 300k page size limitation (including images) is ok to everyone then. Now we just need to agree on the scroll limitation.

I also added a mention discouraging information that needs to be updated often. -- (gem / talk) 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A page's size can be found by using the search results page, though this does not include transcluded sections. (The sizes for those can be determined separately via the search result page.) Using this method and adding the sizes of all images, is there any objection to naming this as a sufficiently-acceptable way to measure a page's total size? It seems to me that most of us want to retain a scroll length limitation. Do any of the above proposed numerical suggestions (or status quo ante bellum) particularly appeal? -- Dashface 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We have explicit suggestions for 2, 3, 4, and 5. (2+3+4+5)/4 = 3.5 scrolls :P personally, I'd prefer the smaller numbers. -- ab.er.rant 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So let's make it easy: just write "main user page should be no longer than three to four scrolls". Why always have a hard limit - how about expressing something like: three pages should be enough, but if you have to make it longer, up to four scrolls are tolerated. We would also avoid the discussion on different browsers, tabbars, toolsbars and so on. Der moon 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

4 is too much. 2-3 is acceptable, but really, would you make an article in the main namespace that long and 300kb in size? (There are a few pages in existance, like skill lists, etc but they are constantly being reformatted to make them a more manageable size). It definitely wouldn't be anywhere near ideal and other editors would trim/split it/make sure the images were smaller or thumbnails. I don't see why people think it's okay to make their user pages that huge when it is common sense that articles of those size are undesirable for a great number of reasons. - BeX 07:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Well, Prophecies has about 5 page scrolls on 1280x1024 and about 8 on 1024x768. This would be twice the length of an allowed main user page. The size is about 200k incl. thumbnails. A page that matching exactly 4 page scrolls would be GWW:POLICY. And this would be the maximum length. So I think 3-4 scrolls stated as maximum should be sufficient. Sure, we can restrict the userpage to 1 scroll and 80k, just username, real name, current project, 2 links to subpages and thats it - but is that a userpage? The intention of a user page is (as far as I know) having a place for users to express themselves outside the limitations of the reglementations and restrictions in the main namespace. If we cut user pages too far, many people won't feel like being at home here and so they won't contribute further as they don't see any advantage of it. These things are always some sort of give and take. You have to give the users something to let them be happy to be part of it. This is what expresses a community. I don't care if a page has a maximum of 1,2,3,4,5 or 10 scrolls. What does that realy matter? Nothing to me, but if someone says to you: express yourself, but you have only 1 page - what would you do? Would you like to express yourself? Most people won't. But if someone says to you: express yourself, but please don't make it too long as people won't read it otherwise - it isn't present as a restriction, it expresses an advice. Now think of you as a new user, what do you prefer to hear? An advice or a restriction? Just my thoughts. Der moon 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, either your font or your color depth is different from mine, because I'm only getting 4 scrolls and 2.5 scrolls for Prophecies and GWW:POLICY respectively on 1280. Second, your argument is easily refuted. We did not say "you only get 1 page" (or however many you think we said). We said (to this effect), "you get 2-3 pages of main user page recommended to have such and such info; anything else goes into your subpages". Exactly how is almost unrestricted (by length or by size) subpages stopping users from "expressing themselves"? -- ab.er.rant 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpages aren't there to express yourself - you can do that on your personal website or at myspace, tbh. When the people that designed mediawiki were creating the userpage section, I am sure they were far from thinking it would be used for shrines to characters. Like wikipedia says, your userpage should supplement and help organise your work as a wiki editor, and facilitate communication between you and other editors. And as for comparing that Prophecies article, like I said before, long articles are less than ideal. And that article has a lot of content to cover.

There is currently nothing at all wrong with the policy as it stands now (apart from the scroll measurement, which works, but is just a silly thing to go by). Userpages are being kept in check, people have been infinitely creative (see Aberrants, Anja's and LordBiro's pages for nice examples). But people want more images and more words, which ultimately are just there for themselves. - BeX 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as user pages aren't there to express yourself, I'm very wrong. I thought user pages are there to give the user a bit of space on the wiki to try out wiki code, experiment with it, get known with the wiki and it's problems, and - in my eyes the most important - introduce yourself to the wiki community. Of course, if you see contributing to the wiki as your main job and you don't do this during your free time, then you are very right. But I - and I think many others - contribute to the wiki as I want to help others, as I want to give something back the community gave me. I also want to know who is there and what they do. Perhaps I might be able to help them as well or they could help me. It's not my job to contribute - I don't get money for it. I just do it out of my wish to help others and help the communtiy. So I think the main discussion here should not be about how long a single page should be, but how the length of user pages is relevant to their function as an expression of myself as part of the community. Of course if you take this down on the technical part, there is not much relevant information on my user page and I should remove most of it and put it on a website. Well, no problem, but I doubt I will feel as part of the community then. Did you check my user page after you read my comment? If yes, why? It contains no useful information but you read it. You got an impression on how someone behaves, on how someone acts, on how someone expresses him to other users. You got an impression of how I am. If you want those information, would you mind to look - not read - over 2 scrolls, 3 scrolls, 4 scrolls, 10 scrolls? Your impression would be another depending on the lenght - the time spent on the user page would probably be the same, independent of the actual length. When you look at someones contributions, you check what he has done for the community and after that you classify him, you get known to him. A person you know will not be treated the same as a person you don't know. So you build up a group of people around you. They do the same and infinately seen, you have the community - this whole large group of people you don't know but somehow want to know as they do the same as you. Or why do you have a userpage mentioning your characters and so on although - as quoted before - this isn't the intention of user pages in first place? The wiki lives because of the community - and the community lives because of personal and direct affiliation - either to the wiki or to other persons contributing to the wiki. You can try to deny and argue, but we all are part of the community. If you restrict users in the length and content of the user pages, you restrict also a part of the impression you can get on this user. There is an important thing left I have to say: I'm used to be some kind of advocat diaboli or here advocat community. I personaly don't like having no restrictions and in case of doubt I prefer the more restrictive variants, but as the whole discussion went to a wrangle on page scrolls and file sizes, I want to move the main topic more to the center: Does the current restrictions hinder users of feeling part of the community or not. If not, the current policy is perfectly ok. If it does, where and how strong is the handicap and should something be changed? In my personal opinion: current policy is perfect, but users want more images on the main page, so perhaps increasing the maximum size to something in the area of 200kb or 300kb would be a good idea. Der moon 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the year or so I have been contributing to this wiki and gwiki, I can honestly say, the only interesting information I got from anyones' user page was finding out a few people that live in the same country as me, and reading Karlos's Chronicles of Lamees (which incidentally are on a subpage). Nothing else on those pages has contributed to my understanding or impression of a person - I get that from communication. It is not userpages that create a community feeling, it is discussion and personal interaction. - BeX 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several thing I see, when I look at user pages: Has the person created his own layout or copied one from another user, is the information written in short terms or in prosa, are there many or few images on his page, is the written text correct or is it full of typos, does the user take care of alignments and his styling, and is the page very simple or very extensive. These are all small things you can read out of a user page. And yes, I look more at those small things than at the text written on it. It is just an impression, but you often find the same things on articles contributed by this user.

Of course - discussion and personal inetraction is a much higher level than user pages and not realy comparable, but how often do you interact personal with other users at the beginning? Typically only after you know them some time. Der moon 10:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (added something I forgot)

I interact with people I haven't met before every day. It just depends on how often our paths meet across the wiki. As for determining a user's personality based on their user page design, nothing in that requires lots of images or length. You are still encouraged to be creative with what you are allowed. And if someone reads your page and is interested in what they see, you can always have more content on subpages. - BeX 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Userpages is a big deal of making the first impression of a user, for me. Sure, I know Gem more of his contributions than user page, but that's because he's an active admin. The other users, that does some editing here and there, I generally refer to their userpages to get to know stuff about them. I even check their userpage to decide if an edit was vandalism or not, sometimes. Userpages is a big part of the community here, and we shouldn't deny this will get to be a big community, not just an encyclopedia with contributors. Personally, I think community is good, I love to talk and discuss GW topics with the people here. And I'd be sad if this degraded to just holding information about the game, not holding a community. I agree with Der moon, page restrictions is a good thing, but we have to think about keeping a community. The user page is often the first thing people do in a wiki. Then you move on to contributing bigger stuff. If user page policies drive you away, we will lose alot of contributors in the long run. Just my thoughts. - anja (contribs) 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet nothing in the current policy is stopping anyone from showing creativity, flair or personality. - BeX 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but I felt the discussion was moving more and more to "just include wiki-related content" instead of "this is the space you have, be creative!". Maybe I was wrong :) - anja (contribs) 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) No, you're not wrong Anja. This discussion is getting off-topic. The discussion is about whether or not we should increase the current size and length restrictions - of which a certain tentative agreement seems to allow a small increase (and we were focusing on page length). Der moon, please understand that we are not preventing people from having a "community feeling". We did not say you cannot express yourself. We just said that you express yourself on subpages and to keep the main page simple and short. That's it. As I said in my previous comment, I do not understand why expressing yourself on subpages is different from expressing yourself on your main user page. Why is it different? The difference is in whether a choice is given to other users whether or not to read more about you via subpage links.

Let's just go back to the discussion on relaxing the length restrictions. I believe we have tentatively agreed to increase total page size limit to 300KB. Now let's go back to whether or not the page scroll should be increased. Does a middle ground of 3 scrolls at 1024 be acceptable? We can word it like "about 3 scrolls", so as to slightly less strict. -- ab.er.rant 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This has my support. -- Dashface 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I still believe you have enough space to express yourself with 2 full screens at 1280. The policy currently says 3 at 1024, so I'm assuming you meant 1280. I will support the no larger than 300kb total page size, but increasing the scroll limitation is stupid. 3 screens at 1280 is nearly 5 pages at 1024. No one should need that much space for their front page. - BeX 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Imho 3 scrolls at 1280 (= ~5 at 1024) is good, but definitely not more. -- (gem / talk) 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... three scrolls at 1024 is not the same as the current three screens. A scroll suggests you scroll down three times, a screen suggests you only scroll down twice. Basically, it's a +1 @1024 (making four screens), which I'd be fine with. I'd rather not go higher, though. MisterPepe talk 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops. I mean 3 screens, not 3 scrolls. I'd be okay with your +1 too. -- (gem / talk) 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

4 screens at 1024 is probably 2 and a third at 1280 right? Pushing on 5 screens at 1024 or 3 at 1280 would get a warning on your talk page about length. I can deal with that. But really, that much of a change is barely noticeable, I don't know why it would be necessary. The current length limitations really should be fine. - BeX 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I think the current length limitation is fine, but maximum size should be increased for users being able to add some more images. 250k would be a good number - in my opinion. I would also change the length limitation to "Your entire user page should fit into about three screens of a browser window at"... With the about in, slightly longer user pages would be tolerated and it sounds more free to users. That should be enough. Der moon 06:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "about" kind of defeats the point of a policy. Policies are enforced, or at least supposed to be - that's too vague to do so, IMO.

Bex, I agree, but I'm trying to learn to pick my battles =\ It seems there are enough people bothered by the length limitation that I'd be fighting uphill on this one - IMO, one screen increase is the minimum increase that I think people are willing to accept, so I'm trying to keep it there instead of spending a lot of energy losing =P MisterPepe talk 06:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't thought of it being to vague - just ignore that. So I would also support +1 screen. 4 screens is about the same as 3 scrolls, so I think it's pretty much the concensus Ab.er.rant has proposed before except the about. How about the size - 250k, 300k, more, less? Der moon 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

People have already agreed that the 300kb total page size you suggested before (which is about 250kb of your own content) would be acceptable. I'm not stepping down on the page length though. If someone can provide a very good example of why they need one extra scroll length of information that absolutely cannot be put on a subpage, then I'll concede the point. - BeX 07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would've used the word "about" as well, to give people a slight offset, so there's no need to say something like "Hey! Your page is ONE LINE over the 3-screen limit, please delete that ONE LINE" kind of comment. The "about" should be taken to mean, you may keep the page at about that length, anything that's obviously over that length still must be trimmed. In my thinking, going just slightly over the limit will be barely noticeable at first glance. But if people think that still sort of gives a leeway of interpretation to readers, then I'm fine with a stricter sentence.

My reason for suggesting/agreeing to that +1 page scroll is simple: to end this. If those supporting an increase would accept a small increase, then as someone who opposed, I'll concede a small increase. (and hopefully, no more such requests will be made) -- ab.er.rant 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have nothing against rewording the current limit to "about" but I still see no point in adding a few extra lines worth of length. The only articles in the main namespace that are that long are because there is no other way to manageably present the amount of content. Two full scrolls at 1280 is more than enough space. - BeX 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this might be a stupid question, but is there any reason whatsoever to limit the images to one per character, if keeping in line with other restrictions? What would be the difference with someone having two pictures of one character compared to one picture each of two characters, except that one is allowed and the other is not? I agree the wording could be a little more lenient on this point, especially if the images are put on a subpage. I can see the point of keeping the image load low on the user main page, but isnt that what the "combined image size limit" is for? I also agree that 100k total is a bit low, especially for the subpages. It is not like someone with a Dial-up has to go to the subpages if they dont want to. The way I understand it storage space is not really an issue, only Dial-up load times and maybe also "clutter". Anyways, I think it is a good idea to let users "express themselves" rather freely on their Userpages, as long as they keep at least the main page Dial-up friendly. If for no other reason than to get introduced to Wiki code and thereby maybe become "proper" Wiki contributors in the long run (*points at self*). :) .--Lensor 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about 1 shot per character is just meant to be saying don't go overboard and take a picture of every armor set they have. The 100k total is only for the mainpage. Images on subpages should not exceed 100kb in size each. - BeX 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning that, for instance, User:Rainith/Hench_Proof almost abides by the current policy, but not quite. -- Dashface 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

@Lensor: This discussion has already reached a decision regarding increasing the image limit. We are now discussing the page length limit. You might want to start a new section to discuss the wording. But my understanding of that sentence is that it does not say you can't have 2 screenshots of the same character. You can try rewording it, but remember the keep the emphasis on no galleries. -- ab.er.rant 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regularily updated info on main user pages

LordBiro just removed the note although many users have requested this recently and even during the original discussions of this policy. (See the discussion above and the archives) For many people it isn't a problem, but really many users have said that constantly updated info on main user pages irritates them. Although it's not the biggest problem for me, I don't see any harm in adding this to the policy as it can't harm anyone. -- (gem / talk) 12:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Many people need/want to watch user talk pages of many users, but are not interested in the user info or their character info, so the user page updates are just unnecessary spam for them. -- (gem / talk) 12:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i.e. people updating their page to say their character earned 2 more skill points (I'm not exaggerating, it happens regularly). - BeX 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for deleting content if consensus has been reached, but I think it's ridiculous to limit the number of edits to user pages because other people might be irritated by them; I can understand saying "PLEASE use preview and mark edits as minor" -- this reduces the number of meaningless/experimental/unnecessary edits. But I think that if you watch a user page for changes, and someone updates their use page once a day, this is something you have to accept. If I want to edit my user page every hour then I will, and if you don't like it then you don't have to watch it.

If this had been a recommendation rather than a "main userpage restriction" then I wouldn't have removed it. LordBiro 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It used the word avoid which isn't a strict restriction, just a strong suggestion. We can ofcourse reword it to make the suggestive nature clear to everyone. I agree that a strict restriction is not in place. -- (gem / talk) 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I never watch a user's page. Just their talk page. Adding a note in about using subpages and inclusion to be considerate to other contributors shouldn't be a big deal. - BeX 12:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was not a suggestion, it was an instruction. It didn't say "try to avoid" or "consider avoiding" it said "Avoid information that needs to be updated often". That is an imperative statement. It also doesn't help when the sentence is under the heading "main userpage restrictions" :P LordBiro 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to reword it. :P You're correct, it doesn't really sound like a suggestion. -- (gem / talk) 12:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What I can't understand is how you can see one bold line in your watchlist as irritating. The recent changes "spam" is not changed by subpages, so you must refer to the watchlist? It's just one line.. what's the problem? - anja (contribs) 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't use RC at all. I use my watchlist to monitor pages. It really is irritating when someone updates 1 character on their page and it brings it up to the top of my list of changes. And when you watch many peoples' talk pages and they are all editing their pages with trivial things multiple times a day, it gets even more irritating. - BeX 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit: And by 1 character, I mean 1 letter or number, throughout the day. - BeX 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't watch too many user pages/user talk pages. I've got dozens of those "one bold line"s on my watch list every day when I wake up in the morning. The watchlist is one of the most important tools for many wiki users, me included, so this is a problem for some. -- (gem / talk) 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who that opening sentence was aimed at, Gem, but if it was me then please don't presume that I don't appreciate the problem (I think it may have been Anja, but I'm not certain!). I too use my watchlist very heavily. I think half of the wiki is on my watchlist :) Of course it would be easier if people didn't update their pages with information I wasn't interested in, but to be honest it doesn't bother me. If someone changes their user page to add 2 characters then it says (+2) in my watchlist, and I can use Lupin's script to see a quick preview of the diff.

Regarding the text itself, a rewrite would be very acceptable to me. "Regular changes to your main userpage are discouraged but not prohibited. If you wish to include information on your userpage that you might update many times a day then consider putting this information in a subpage and including it into your main userpage." LordBiro 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If it were aimed at you I would have started with "LordBiro:" or something, otherwise the indentation shows who I'm replying to. (Yeah I know, most pople aren't so clear with their replies :/ ) That is to say it was aimed at Anja, I know you use the watchlist a lot and I know you are aware of what we are talking about.

That rewrite is ok to me. -- (gem / talk) 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I dislike both the old and the current version proposed above. This seems to be a very worrying trend here that tries to regulate what people do on their userpage. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with a list of information that has to be on the user page soon. Why regulate how often users edit their userpage? To make stalking easier? There is no reason at all why you should be able too watch a userpage conveniently if that user does not care about you watching. --Xeeron 11:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's under etiquette, not restrictions. You can edit as many times as you want (not to encourage rc spam) without bothering someone who has your page watched to contact you. If you aren't worried about etiquette then you may as well be editing every few minutes without marking it as minor. - BeX 11:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We aren't forcing anyone to do anything differently. It's just a small etiquette reminder which might or might not help someones wiki experience to be a bit better. -- (gem / talk) 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with regulating what people do on their userpage? Wiki policies regulate just about everything a user can do on a wiki. A mention on preferred conduct is better than no mention of conduct. -- ab.er.rant 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

New subtopic, since I really don't want to get involved in the policy discussion above. Gem, Bexor, and anyone else who gets bothered by frequently updating user pages in your watchlist, you might be interested in this small script which groups entries in your watchlist based on their namespace (screenshot of what it looks like). To install it just grab the script from my monobook.js (it's the very last one on that page, scroll to the bottom), and add it to your monobook.js. --Dirigible 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty fun idea, but I like to have the stuff in chronological order so that I can easily see what topics might be currently under discussion when I log in. Might test this though. -- (gem / talk) 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Side note, is it possible to choose the sorting yourself? - anja (contribs) 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very cool and I will definitely test it out, but I still believe that the etiquette bit should stay in the policy. - BeX 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Main namespace to user namespace

Just something that occurred to me. Are we allowed to create links in main space articles to user space subpages? -- ab.er.rant 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need to? MisterPepe talk 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gaile Gray article already does. -- Dashface 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For anet staff I would say an exception is fine. It makes sense a lot of the time. Also in situations where individual tournament results are listed perhaps it would be appropriate. But I can't think of any other reasons. --Lemming64 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, subpages you say? You mean like the "for discussion and proof in this matter, see Talk:Armor", except instead of a talk page, it might be, say, "more data is available at User:AOTT/Opinion" or "The name of the NPC Abrie Linx might be a reference to User:Ab.er.rant/Links"? -- Dashface 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, "More information regarding weapon sets can be found at User:MisterPepe/MonkWeaponSwaps" =P /endshamelessplug

Yeah, I don't really see any reason at all why we would need links to sub pages, which explains my previous comment =\ MisterPepe talk 01:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the examples you two provided are exactly what I had in mind. Until Anja (on another page) suggested why not I just move the subpage into the main namespace. And I was like... "Doh! Of course!" :P -- ab.er.rant 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the page has useful info that we want to link to in an article, it should be moved from user name space to main name space ofcourse. If it's in the user name space the user could do whatever he wants with the info, possibly distrupting the wiki. For example he could suddenly replace all content with his in game character bios. (unlikely but possible) -- (gem / talk) 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I've just realised a new problem. One that is caused by all the auto-categorisation used by the infoboxes. Take User:Mortez for example. That user page uses {{npc infobox}}, which automatically categorises into the proper profession categories. I believe this is something that should be prevented. Perhaps disallow the use of infoboxes that are used in mainspace to be used in user space? -- ab.er.rant 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, userpages should not be in any mainspace categories. Perhaps have them subst the infobox and remove the cats, or recreate it. - BeX 07:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A simple rule: Any templates created for use in the main name space may not be used in user name space, especially if they add the page to a category ment for main name space articles. If users want to use the template, they may ofcourse subst it or copy the code from the template. -- (gem / talk) 15:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the template for profession icons, i.e. {{mo}}? I would rather say: Any template created for use in the main name space may not be used if they add the page to a category ment for main name space articles. Templates not adding to a category should be no problem -in my opinion. Der moon 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the subst code still add the warrior category to the page? --Lemming64 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"subst the infobox and remove the cats" I said and no one pays attention. :'( - BeX 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody tried that on User:Mortez but (I think) ran into the problem that there are no category tags to remove in the subst'ed code. Our auto-categorization is often complicated.. --Rezyk 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for that idea. :P - BeX 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd opt to strip auto-categorization from the infobox, especially before making it off-limits (or excessively complicated) for user use. In this case though, an added parameter addresses the problem and retains auto-categorization. --Rezyk 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like adding in a autocat = n parameter for user space use? -- ab.er.rant 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. (I already implemented it on this and on {{skill infobox}}, btw) --Rezyk 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I learned a new magic word today! -- ab.er.rant 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The NPC infobox template has a great usage and examples section, btw. makes a complicated template easy to use. Great work all who contributed there. --Xeeron 09:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Todays changes

Feel free to give feedback on the changes I made today. I think I addressed all of the concerns people have raised - except for the scroll length limitation, but that discussion is ongoing. I think I made this a little less daunting/scary for new users to read, and hopefully made things clearer. - BeX 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice changes overall, I think it is much clearer now! :) Just one small thing I noticed. Under "Etiquette" it used to say that content should be (paraphrazing) "Guild Wars or Guild Wars Wiki related". Now it is only supposed to be "primarily Guild Wars Wiki related". I suggest to reinstate the "or Guild Wars related" part. Practially all current user pages would have to be heavily edited to comply with this new etiquette. IMO it is better to have users that spend most of their time presenting their characters and contribute to the Wiki a little bit here and there, than to not have them at all. Even a bunch of small contributions matter, so why not say it is ok for people to concentrate on their Guild Wars stuff on their user page if they want to? --Lensor 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's under etiquette and it says should, it's not a YOU MUST DO THIS. Previously it was very strict about all contributions being guild wars or wiki related, which in my opinion didn't mean you could make pages about your characters, but rather that you should be researching the game and documenting it. It now means that you shouldn't spend every day here working on your user page and nothing else, but rather it should be a sideline to your work as a wiki contributor. If you are only here to make a userpage, then I would suggest finding a webhost! - BeX 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The etiquette should be explicit if that is what it means. It does not say "dont work on presenting your user page and nothing else". It says "spend most of your time with the Wiki". Hardly the same. My impression (scrolling through the Category:Users, biased as that may be) is that almost everyone use the majority of their time to present their characters etc. Many dont even have any other contributions (yet! the Wiki is still young). You are saying that it is better to drive these users away from the Wiki (telling them they have "bad etiquette"), than to let them stay, get comfortable with the Wiki code, and then maybe become meaningful Wiki contributors in the future? Is storage space really that important?--80.217.241.186 09:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC) --Lensor 09:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (got logged out while typing..)

=\ Yeah, that's a fairly biased group to look through. One of the subgroups, Category:GWW Helper Program members, would probably be a decent counter-example.

And I don't really see the problem that you're having with this - the purpose of the wiki is not to create the best userpage. I think Bex worded it pretty nicely, actually. MisterPepe talk 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that any user should be using this site for what it is intended, not for their own self-serving purposes. And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out. This wiki is here to serve the Guild Wars community, not individuals, and coming here and spending all day, every day editing only your userpage and nothing else should be discouraged. This isn't a webhost!

How more explicit can the statement "content that is not Guild Wars Wiki related should not be the main contribution of a user and should not be the focus of your time and dedication." be? Is any part of that statement false or misleading?

Frankly it saddens me that people think that their user pages are what drives this community. Make a page, leave it, and then get on with your work. If you want to foster a feeling of community, then communicate with people, contribute on group projects, help other people out, think up interesting ideas to present content... That's what community is all about. It's like saying having a nice looking house will make the neighbours like you more. Having a barbeque to meet them works better. - BeX 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of alternative are you suggesting Lensor? Are you suggesting that it be removed? I would be against that as well. It's true that a lot of new users learn their way around wiki code from looking at other people's user pages and copying them and tweaking them. But it's also true that serious contributors will attempt to start working on the main space as soon as possible, starting with simple little fixes here and there. I believe that line explains the situation nicely: we do not prevent you from having some fun with your user page, but we would like that your user page is not your primary contribution. -- ab.er.rant 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone have to be a "serious contributor" anyway? Personally I like to think that also the "not-so-serious contributor" can make a difference. I can agree that it would not be that nice to "spend all day every day on your user page and nothing else". But, again, that is not what is said. There is a huge difference between spending 12 hours daily on the user page and nothing else, and spending one hour on the user page and 45 minutes on the Wiki. I for one think that at least the latter should be fine.

Also, with the in-game link to guilds, I would actually contend that users presenting characters and nothing else already do give valuable contributions to the Wiki. I personally would much rather have Wiki guild rosters well filled with User pages, than to have only blanks due to it being "bad etiquette" to make a user page if one does not spend at least as much time again with the Wiki. I know many players frequently go through the in-game Guild links to get to know guilds and their members. And that IS good for the community. (At least for the in-game one, but it is, or should be, linked to the well-being of the Wiki community) Anyway, it is not really that big a deal (even if it may seem like I think so). I just think there would be no harm in reinstating the old wording of "Guild Wars or Guild Wars Wiki related", it would imo even be for the best in the long run.--Lensor 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument with the guilds would be a good one if the guild articles would be allowed to have links to users in the guild. However, a list of members is not allowed so your point is moot. -- (gem / talk) 10:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is getting ridiculous. It is under etiquette, not under restrictions. No page would be deleted or blanked because of bad etiquette. It is simply a reminder that this wiki should be used first and foremost for what it was intended. There are next to no restrictions on content, and if anyone reads the policy they should be able to see that. If they are confused then they can look at the multitudes of user pages out there that obviously have Guild Wars related content in them. It's ridiculous to say that users would be turned away because they are recommended to spend their time helping out by contributing to documenting the game. If they aren't interested in that, then how are they meant to be benefitting the wiki community at all? - BeX 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

@Gem: Bad choice of words by me (roster). It is true that a full roster on the Guild Page is not allowed. But nowhere is it stated that is isnt allowed to have links to a subset of the guild members. And the "what links here" is also a tool, albeit a very blunt one, to find out more about the Guild roster (hopefully the consensus will be to allow streamlining through Guild User categories, but I digress...). @BeXor: I think we are talking beyond each other here. From what I read you seem to think that anyone not spending exactly over 50% (ie "the main contribution") of their time on the Wiki is being "self-serving" and "not interested" in the Wiki community. I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and I hope I have misunderstood you. I of course realize that noone will be deleted over "bad etiquette" (although getting stamped with "bad etiquette" would be discouraging for some to enter the Wiki in the first place). Actually I think a variant of the wording you just used would be a much much friendlier way to encourage Wiki contribution: "Users are recommended to spend their time not only on their User space, but also on helping out the Wiki by contributing to documenting the game whenever they can". --Lensor 13:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't accept your alternative wording. Your wording places more emphasis on user pages than wiki content! That's... wrong on several levels. You're encouraging the wrong sort of ppl. We want contributors who are more interested in contributing to the main space than being mostly self-serving. I don't see why you're against being labelled "bad etiquette"? No one will go around to these users and tell them they have "bad etiquette". And etiquette is not a black-and-white issue. There's a whole range of gray. About 50% user space contributor is a not-so-exemplary user. While another at 100% user space edits does have bad etiquette according to policy. And what's wrong with that? By simple logic, if a user is interested in contributing to the wiki, as time passes, their edits in the main namespace will and should surpass their edits in the user/guild namespace. Because, just how much edits can you do on your user space? If your user space edits can actually keep up with your main space edits, then yes, I'm agreeing with Bex that it's not something that we want to encourage at all. And please realise that "not wanting to encourage" is different from "disallowing". I'm also very doubtful that that particular sentence has the power to discourage users from filling their user space with character shrines. Have you actually come across such a case? Most new users won't bother reading policies. Most users who start wanting to contribute will start reading policies and then attempt to adhere to them. It's not like there's a time limit for the ratio of main space edits versus user space edits. -- ab.er.rant 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion might be a bit over the top, but still it is friendlier that what stands there now. While it may be true that the current wording do not have the ulitmate "power", it is still imo unnessesary to be overly exclusive. I think there must be a way to encourage Wiki contribution without calling those who want to (at least to begin with) concentrate on their user page "self-serving". As you point out, most users will, over time, start to contribute more and more in the main Wiki. Either that or they will drop off alltogether. Maybe by clarifying the "no time limit" thing might do the trick?. Something along the lines of: "While user pages are a fantastic way for users to explore creativity and practice with wiki code, the long term goal should be to concentrate on Guild Wars Wiki related content". Please understand that I am not trying to be obstinate here. I just think as it stands, the policy strikes me as unfriendly and counterproductive. I can tell you this, if that sentence had been there when I first signed up, I would in all likelyhood not have joined at all. When I first came here it said "Guild Wars or Guild Wars Wiki related", and as I felt comfortable with that, I joined. --Lensor 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Another example of a user that wants it their way or the highway? You cannot hold user pages as ransom over your contributions.

Concentrating on wiki stuff should never, ever be relegated to a "long term" goal. Anyone that understands the meaning of "etiquette" and has read the policy restrictions or seen another user page should be able to see how this policy works. Most users make their user page before reading the policy anyway, by the number of suggestions on talk pages to read it.

In the end, it is bad etiquette to come here and only focus on editing your user page, and that's how it will stay. - BeX 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"My way or the high way"?? "Hold pages ransom"???? I just said that had the current wording been in place when I joined I would not have been comfortable with those guidlines and therefore not joined at all (as I tend to do my very best to "play be the rules"). I am a Wiki noob, and as such I am not comfortable with diving into the Wiki content without wetting my feet on the user pages. Understand that it would not be out of spite, but because I simply would not percieve my presence as "wanted", and therefore not impose myself. That other users dont care about "etiquette" is of no consequence, I do. You may think that I am a parasite on Wiki resources, but I like to think that I will be able to be a valuable contributor (especially when I get my computer together, my GW is constantly crashing on me lately, but that is beside the point). Honestly, you have been nothing but aggressive from the get go, shouting and calling names. Therefore I am now leaving this discussion, it is getting nowhere fast. --Lensor 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's going on 5 months of discussion on this, repeating the same things over and over.

So, once again, the etiquette is simply a reminder not to infringe on ArenaNet's hospitality and that yes, this place is for documenting the game, not your Guild Wars webhost. Earlier in this discussion people actually did say that they would leave if they weren't allowed to do whatever they wanted. And you are saying that you would not have joined because you didn't like the "restrictions" on a service that Anet has no obligation to provide to you - and I see that as holding contributions for ransom.

The wording is fair, clear and accurate. We should not be encouraging people to work solely on their user pages, and in no situation would that be right to do. - BeX 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(turns on the fan) Calm down you guys. I'm sure Lensor didn't mean it like that Bex. He was just trying to propose a rewording so that it doesn't sound unfriendly, because he thinks that it does sound unfriendly while we don't. This is just a matter of the wording. Lensor, the reason I'm opposed to a change in the wording is because of the impression it will give. I believe there must be emphasis on a user's contributions. And I also believe that there should not be any explicit mention of a "looseness" to it. I don't want it to say "you can take your own sweet time to decide when you want to start contributing to wiki content". I don't want it to imply that "you can play around with your user page as much as you want and not bother with wiki content". Because like Bex, I also view the user pages as just something on the side and thus trivial, and I just don't think there is any reason to encourage content in user space. But with your points Lensor, would you be fine if we just change it back to "Guild Wars and Guild Wars Wiki related"? Because most user space are like that now anyway. Bex? With so many character pages being created... it does kinda imply that most of our users lack etiquette (me included... >.< ) -- ab.er.rant 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that you like to find a middle ground (as do I), but I really don't think this is a situation for it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording, and the fact that you have Guild Wars character pages isn't showing a lack of etiquette at all. If you were to come here every day and only edit that, and never contribute anything else, then it might be, but that is unlikely to happen (and in cases where it does, there's nothing we can do about it). It's not about the content, it's about how much time and effort you spend on something. And even when that is taken under consideration, you can spend as much time as you want editing your user page, because unless you save it, no one can tell how long it took between edits.

I don't believe that we should be making any concession toward non-wiki related content, because it's already unrestricted enough as it is. If we were to let that go, then there is nothing in any part of the policy that even hints towards the fact that your user page shouldn't be your main concern, which would be a gross injustice on our behalf. - BeX 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I'm not really compromising on the meaning and implication of that sentence by suggesting re-adding "Guild Wars" to it right? Because in the end, since we've already allowed pretty much everything in subpages, I'm just thinking it really won't make much of a difference. I don't see any problem with the wording either, but I was kinda hoping to convince Lensor and explain our point of view rather than outright denying his point of view. But then again, it has only been the three of us thrashing this out so I think more opinions from other users would really help. -- ab.er.rant 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried chiming in to this discussion, since I have about the same view as Lensor, but I gave up. Sometime during this discussion I got the feeling that only one view is accepted. I respect both you alot, but Bexor taking up "your way or the highway" just made me laugh. You are also saying the same Bexor, your way or the highway.
For me, Guild Wars Wiki is the only Guild Wars community I frequent because this is the only place I find likeminded people. As it is "my community", I feel about it differently than you, I guess. - anja (contribs) 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks to Ab.er.rant's gentle meddling, I'll take a deep breath and go back on my word here. Anyways. Even though I personally think Users spending most of their time presenting their characters and just dabble in the Wiki here and there is not a problem (as explained above), I can sympathize that you dont want to encourage that kind of Wiki behavior. So I suppose "Guild Wars content" is off the table. Regardless, I still do not like the current wording, as it is excluding and thereby unfriendly. I think the wording should in stead be including and reflect a heartfelt wish that users make an effort to contribute the Wiki to the best of their ability. I think that to do ones best should be the limit as to what is considered "good etiquette". Maybe something like: "While user pages are a fantastic way for users to explore creativity and practice with wiki code, the purpose of the Guild Wars Wiki is above all to document the game. Therefore, users should make every effort to help building the Wiki wherever and whenever they can. A good benchmark is to make Guild Wars Wiki related content your main contribution and the focus of your time and dedication." A bit longer than what stands now, but basically conveys the same sentiment (just friendlier and more including).--Lensor 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lensor can you check out Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Draft A - I've gotten rid of the nots and I hope that it is better suiting. Any further discussion about this should continue on the talk page for the draft. - BeX 10:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That wording describes my feelings for this in a good way. :) - anja (contribs) 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Beside all discussion, there is a formal mistake in it (as I learned policies have to be clear and not vague): The sentence Information about your activities in Guild Wars, such as the names of your characters, your guild affiliation, or a synopsis of your particular interests or accomplishments. is a problem as it should concretize the sentence You are encouraged to present brief personal information and content related to the Guild Wars Wiki on your user page.. Because Guild Wars activities are neither personal information nor Guild Wars Wiki related, this sentence has to be removed. I think you can imagine the consequences to users comparing the new policy with the old one. Der moon 09:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. But rather than removing it, I suggest replacing it with something like In-game contact details like character names and guild affiliation, possibly with some gameplay and accomplishment notes. -- ab.er.rant 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The impression for any user not reading this discussion would be the same - no matter if you remove it or replace it. It implies that character information is unwanted. We currently have two sections: "you can do" (Suggested content) and "you must not do" (Content restrictions). The change in the "you can do" section implies a move from "you can present character information" to "we don't want you to present character information anymore". And I think this would be fatal to the morale of users. We can't give users something and remove it some time later. It is just like we wanted to trap and capture them.

Let's do a thought experiment: You work for free (only for a bit of respect) and see in your labor contract: "You can make breaks." After you worked 4 months, your employer comes to you, takes your labor contract and stikes the line out. What would you think? Is it really still allowed to do breaks? You probably will be angry, because you work for free and the employer just stroke out your breaks. Think of leaving the company?

And now think of us (the wiki community) as employer and everyone around here as the free worker. Still think of leaving the company?

In the moment we remove the sentence in the policy, people will start leaving because we removed benefices they had. Der moon 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually what you thought it implied is correct. The user page policy was originally designed not to allow character shrines that feed a user's ego. But due to objections, it was loosened to allow it. You are also making the mistake of mixing up the "can" and "cannot" for the user page versus the user space. You need to understand that the suggested content and restrictions apply to the user page. The user page is your main page. We're not disallowing personal stuff in the user space, but we also do not want to direclty encourage it too much. You are with the same group of people who think that having character shrines are the benefits and probably the sole reason of joining this wiki. That is incorrect thinking. -- ab.er.rant 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to read through the policy several times before grasping that "user page" means the main page only, and "User space" is everything including subpages. It does not help that at the top of the page there is talk about "User Page", further down there is talk about "User main page", and suggested "User page" content include stuff that one would think would be primarily suggested to put into subpages (character descriptions etc). It is also unclear if there are any size limitations at all to user subpages (apart from "dont put huge image galleries"). I think a clarification would be very helpful. I also agree with Der_Moon that is can be a very dangrous path to first allow something, then change ones mind, as illustrated by my recent fit about the removal of "Guild Wars related" from the etiquette section.--Lensor 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right - I was mixing up user page and user space. Till now I thought a user has a main user page. This and the subpages form the user page (as whole) and the addition of images, talk pages, categories, anything forms the user space which is a space in that all user pages of all users reside (and not individually). Knowing this now, many things are much clearer now. A clarification in the policy would be very helpful, indeed. I don't think character shrines should have a place in the wiki and I think that users should put their focus on contribution rather than styling their user page. A short subpage describing a character and what makes it special is more than enough in my opinion. But I stick to my previous comment that revoking granted options is a very unfriendly step to existing users, even if it was not intentionally granted in first place. When rewording the sentence, we should take care of that and not aggro more than we can defeat (to say it in Guild Wars words). Der moon 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing policy

Just to bring our policy for changing policies to notice here. Since user page is a currently implemented policy, it needs to be reverted to the state before the changes with failed to get consensus above. If there are any parts of the changes which are uncontroversial, feel free to re-add them again readd them in accordance with the policy changes policy. --Xeeron 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The revision is now at Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Draft A. Those who mentioned changing the restrictions should edit that and then we'll try get it moved over asap. - BeX 10:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)The controversial changes begin with revision RV 155978. The last uncontroversial revision is RV 155951. Perhaps it should be reverted to this instead of RV 149869. Der moon 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Character screenshot

(new section as suggested by Ab.er.rant) Ok, nice to get it clarified that it IS ok to have multiple screenshot of one character, as long as one does not go overboard :) (I have three character presented on my page, two of which have two images). However, the sentence "For example, it is acceptable to upload a small image of each of your in-game characters, but uploading large galleries of each character's armor sets is not" does to me imply that one picture/character is the limit of what is acceptable, not that it is a guideline. I would suggest to take this sentence out alltogether, as it serves no purpose if there anyways is a total size limit. Alternatively, a rewording as follows may be appropriate: "For example, it is acceptable to upload a handful of small images of in-game characters, but uploading large galleries is not (even if dividing them into subpages that individually does not exceed the page limit)". That way, the wording becomes a little more "free", but still clearly states that galleries are not acceptable. The part within the paranthesis may be included for clarification if the policy is that it is not OK to upload galleries period.--Lensor 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "page limit"? Are you referring to the main user page size limit? If you are, I'm thinking the parentheses part could be like "(even if they are all located in separate subpages)" instead. But the problem with that is that if they are on multiple subpages, do they still count as a "gallery"? Perhaps consider not rewording it. That way, it kinda implies that only one per character is allowed (which is actually a good rule, to discourage uploads), but I interpreted it as not explicitly disallowing two for one or two characters. But I suppose other users might understand it differently. -- ab.er.rant 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think one day I would like to make some character articles, but I would probably only make 2 or 3 and I certainly wouldn't want to be limited to one picture per character. I never interpreted that sentence as meaning that way. Hopefully it is acceptable now. - BeX 08:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I never really had a problem with the initial phrasing, but I can see how it would be confusing. I think it's worded much more clearly now, i.e. we don't have to come to the talk page here to understand what it's saying precisely. Nice job. - Thulsey - talk 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is much nicer now, thank you :). --Lensor 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)