Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Sign your comments 2007-12-22

So, any ideas on alterations? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Change GuildWiki to Guild Wars 2 Wiki. Lord of all tyria 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a C+P from GuildWiki a copyright violation? --Valshia 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I don't like legal stuff :S Lord of all tyria 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Oh god, not this one. I prefer the Unoff Wiki sign policy, it ain't that tight, and you don't need to create socks if you want to make your sig contain only a part of your name... --- -- (s)talkpage 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I replaced it with a C+P of GWW's policy, with a minor alteration regarding sig image size. If you want to alter the sockpuppet requirement, I for one don't have an objection. --Valshia 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why C+P existing policies from existing Wikis? GW2W:SIGN might be a useful policy, but there's something to be said for starting over with a more bare bones policy and seeing where things go once policy creation gets into full swing. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just take the one from GWW for now as a temp policy. — ク Eloc 貢 07:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a temp policy at all. —Tanaric 07:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? — ク Eloc 貢 07:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be? —Tanaric 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even if we wanted to use a temporary policy, why not simply add a link to GWW's version? What's the purpose of copy pasting and then adding a Proposal Draft tag? But either way, I don't see why we need a temporary version of this policy beyond the general guideline of "use common sense when designing signatures" and then go from there. *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The arguement agains temporary policies is that they tend to be less temporary than you might assume. Just take a look at GWW's "temporary" build policy that stuck around for more than half a year and effectivly killed off any attempts to create builds there.

About this specific policy, it is one of my least liked ones on GWW (together with the user page one), I'd prefer a complete rewrite that is much shorter and less restrictive. --Xeeron 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

where should i write my proposal? i still don't get the proposal system tbh :( - Y0_ich_halt 15:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be finished on the talk page for the main policy page first. I don't think we've decided how to to do it. -- br12 • (talk) • 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a system yet. If you want to propose something, just write it down somewhere, stick a "policy proposal" note on it and link it from the policy page. --Xeeron 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the policy proposal

The above is going widely off-topic, so I'm starting a new discussion. My personal preference would be to use a similiar policy to the one at gww, since it really kept user signatures as helpful tools, not distracting super cool art pieces that distract from the actual content. I am opposed to having a non-restricting system such as the one at GWiki or no restrictions at all, since I'm finding it hard to contribute to the discussions at GWiki nowdays when users have birght sigs with horrible fonts and sig icons. I like to take part in discussion and I'd also like to be able to actually read what others say quickly instad of using double the time because the signatures are so staggering and distracting. I know people like to spice up their sigs and make them some sort of art pieces, but really there is no need. If you want to go creative, you have your user page and it's sub pages for that, the sig is a useful tool and not a show case of your editing skills and bad taste. ;) -- (gem / talk) 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, in this case i'd support copying from GWW... - Y0_ich_halt 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't want to see another Riven discussion. Full support of a copy from GWW, perhaps with a few minor tweaks. Calor — talk 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing "a joyous wintersday to all" in bright blue is getting annoying. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Opposed. Sigs shouldn't have images at all. If we're to copy a signature policy from anywhere, I'd prefer Wikipedia's.

i think images do a great job at identifying someone. you, for instance, need an image imo. i often take you for tanetris because your names and sigs are similar. - Y0_ich_halt 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to basically copy the policy from GWW. --Lemming 00:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the policy from GWW is probably most appropriate. Though I also agree that the witch hunt for misnaming should be lessened, with maybe a guideline to sysops to help fix the problem rather than immediately tagging for deletion with a note that "your image is in violation of naming policy". That whole thing is really off putting to new users.-- Wynthyst 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

/Agree copy form GWW ~ SCobra 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Sup is still not allowed... that makes me sad. I only got it permitted on one wiki, never again was it allowed. ‽-(eronth) I give up 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature policies are meh. Really, it's about making sure signatures aren't distracting or too long. Spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule, of course. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıę 06:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it does, but it just so happens that I can't sup, color, and small all at the same time here. ‽-(eronth) I give up 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying from GWW seems fine, but maybe we could enforce it a little less zealously here. Lord Belar 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking in sigs

The current draft of this proposal forbids linking to pages other than your userpage, contribs page, and talk page. Is there any particular reason to not be able to link to other pages in your own userspace? --Edru viransu 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

why would you wanna link to something else? - Y0_ich_halt 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

why not? — Skakid HoHoHo 00:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because signatures are to identify the writer. poke | talk 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed any other pages that would be linked to would most likely not be anything that other users need to contact or identify a user. Anything else can be placed on your user page or talk page and people will find it there. -- (gem / talk) 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But maybe they want to make it visible in other places? Backsword 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What if I wanted to use a subpage of my userpage for my main contact-related userpage, while having User:Edru viransu basically have a description of what I'm mostly focused on on the wiki at the time or something. Not a very good explanation, but I don't really see what purpose is served by forbidding me to link to User:Edru viransu/Sandbox in my signature, for example. --Edru viransu 01:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The sig serves as a way to contact a user, but a link to the talk page is not forced (and can't be since the default sig doesn't have it). From the main user page a user can easily click the 'talk' link at the top to access the talk page of a user, but if instead he is taken to a sub page then he can't easily get to your talk page. -- (gem / talk) 19:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to me to be much of a reason to forbid a sig like "Edru viransu/QQ/what I'm doing" That's maybe a bit lengthy, but it's just an example. --Edru viransu 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If we remove this restricion then we need to add an additional restriction that forces one to have a link to either their user or talk page. I don't really care which way we do it as long as sigs always fulfill their role as a contact method. -- (gem / talk) 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It already requires a link to either your userpage or your talk page. --Edru viransu 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, right. How about something like: "You must at least include a link to your user page or your talk page. Your signature may also include a link to a page related to you personal wiki usage, such as your contributions page or a personal project page. Any other internal or external links are not allowed in your signature." ? -- (gem / talk) 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Edru viransu 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) /disagree, Sigs are to ID someone. If you want to bring a page to someone's attention put link on your userpage ~ SCobra 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously we did allow a contribs link, now we just allow a contribs link OR a link to another page that describes your work at the wiki, both of which are useful to ID the user and his work on the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 16:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:User Example sig.png

I dislike that image use policy, as many new users will. I don't want another GWW:SIGN witch hunt. That issue should be in a guideline since it's only etiquette and enforcing it will drive ppl away.reanor 01:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that requiring signature images (and user images in general) to start with Image:User <username> should be mandatory to prevent naming conflicts, but I don't see any problem with using any conflict-proof signature image name as long as the suffix matches the file type and the name isn't something patently offensive. I don't think we should actively search for user images names that don't follow the Image:User <username> naming convention, delete infringing images or punish users who don't follow the naming convention, but I do think that it should be enforced when there is a conflict (for example, if several users are fighting over Image:Signature.png, or if someone tries uploading their signature image to something like Image:Asura.jpg). I don't see any problem with jpegs, pngs, static gifs or non-seizure-inducing animated gifs. As for image size, I think that a reasonable height limit is necessary to avoid breaking formatting, but I don't think width would be an issue until it gets into the low hundreds. There should also be a reasonable file size limit (large enough that it would only be an issue for animated gifs). -- Gordon Ecker 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's such a thing, conflicts over image naming (just change the name or add a number, conflict? wtf) are much less troubling than what happened at GWW. Guideline only or nothing.reanor 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And why should I be able to stake a claim on Image:Signature.jpg? I think it's reasonable to require all non-shared user images to be preceded by Image:User <username>. But I agree that guidelines would be sufficient for user pages, signatures and image naming conventions. -- Gordon Ecker 09:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said (somewhere), the signature images need to be named the same way as GWW, as all preferences are copied over the moment they are changed. I know that all the people here aren't from GWW, but in order to make sure that those people are following the policy over there (as long as they contribute over there), then that naming will also hae to be adopted here too. That is unless there is a way to stop the preference linking. -- br12 • (talk) • 15:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Brains knows too much, or at least puts things together too well. Also, is there any way, on the image upload page, to say "Please prefix all images that will be used in your signature or userspace only with the word "User" then your username, followed with what you would like to call the image." Calor (t) 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What if we only require the prefix 'User' and dump the requirement for the user name? This would still prevent conflicts with images that are used in the main name space. With no restrictions people might upload Image:Abaddon.jpg etc, but the less restricting rule with no user name required would make things a lot easier for new users. -- (gem / talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

i thought the reason behind this naming is the fact that you can then use all files -> files with "User Yourname"... - Y0_ich_halt 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't quite understand what you mean. :P The original reasoning was something between keeping the files organised and non-conflicting and making distinguishing user images easy and making sure that it's easy to know whose they are. Imho a simple prefix 'User' should be enough to fulfill the important things, ie name conflicts and separation from main name space images. -- (gem / talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy should be the same as GWW because that way there is no possible that two people would want the same name for their sig image, also as Brains said when you change your sig here it change over at GWW and vice versa so if you had say Image:User My Sig.jpg in your sig here then you went over to GWW you would be breaking policy there so then you'd change your image name to conform with the policy there then you'd have to upload the image as image:User username my sig over here as well so you could continue using it. The way the preferences are currently linked it is pretty much impossible to have different policies regarding signatures on each wiki. Lyra Valo 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the wikis using the same user database or was the user database from gww just copied here? Because if it was just copied then chaning sigs after that wouldn't affect the other wiki. I haven't tested, so I don't know. If the database is shared then having a similiar policy would be the best, but note that user can also use only one of the wikis, and if they use both they should make sure that they are following the policies of both, so the policies don't need to be exactly the same. We could also change the policy on gww to match the one we create here if we get community consensus there. -- (gem / talk) 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

If you change your sig here then it changes over there if that's what you were asking. Lyra Valo 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we should aim for the same or very similiar policy. Imho let's not feel too restricted about that though, we can always try to create the best possible policy here and then propose the changes at gww. -- (gem / talk) 23:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Some say we should copy GWW, but why shouldn't we copy GW instead? GuildWiki has no restrictions over image naming and the world didn't blow up. Anyway, who the heck is that dump to upload Abaddon.jpg for personal use? Who cares if someone uploads signature.jpg? If another user (unlikely) comes up with the same idea, he can just upload signature2.jpg, who's gonna fight over that? In the rare case that a user uploads an image using a mainspace name before that name is used in mainspace (again, unlikely), it's not that hard to replace the image and tell the user to re-upload with a different name. This is not that complicated guys, it's not a real problem, the GWW:SIGN witch hunt is.reanor 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd prefer to have user images in a separate namespace so that they can be filtered out of searches, but I'm not sure if that's possible. I think it's reasonable to require people to keep all their user pages and non-shared user templates in their user page namespace, and I don't see why similar standards should shouldn't be applied to user images. -- Gordon Ecker 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Did tou mean "shouldn't" instead of "should"? -- (gem / talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't. And I think that moving (or, for images, re-uploading with attribution) would be preferable to deletion for misplaced user pages and images. -- Gordon Ecker 03:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not rare cases, people will get fight over images. I think we should stick to the User <username> but dump the _sig.jpg part ~ SCobra 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"sig" has never been mandatory in GWW's sign. tell me if i just said something plain wrong because i haven't quite read the discussion above. - Y0_ich_halt 16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is to just use the Image:User Username Imagename.jpg for signatures only and tag them with {{user image}}. Have the same naming for any other user image as a guideline, but if someone doesn't follow it, no big problem, but you should tag them with user image at the very least. -- br12 • (talk) • 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Imo we will have more problems and unnecessary re-uploading with a 'User <username>' naming policy than we woud have naming conflicts with 'User' naming policy. Just look at gww user talk pages and you'll notice that almost all users who've joined after the current policy was formedahve had huge problems with user image naming and re-uploading, and I'd like to get away from that, especially since it's not a nice welcome to the wiki to get a "You're images are incorrectly named and will be deleted" message on your first day. -- (gem / talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

/agree. - Y0_ich_halt 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Gem, it's the same database. If I make an account on GWW, it is automattically made here on GW2W. I tested it today. — ク Eloc 貢 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

• Keep the current image naming convention
• Remove excessive restrictions on formatting (bg color, etc) -elviondale (tahlk) 21:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• add restrictions against signatures like: poke... poke | talk 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc: I made my account here, because I didn't make on over at GWW. If the policies would be c/p'ed over, it would mean I'd get one of those messages the first day I got here. There are more people than just those from GWW. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You made a good point: GWW and GW2W are linked! That means that the signature is equal on both pages. So if we lower the restrictions here and change the signature, it is also changed on GWW and could maybe violate the GWW:SIGN.. So I would like to see an equal - but good - policy on both wikis. poke | talk 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say change GWW one to be less restrictive. Lord of all tyria 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd be good, but you know those guys over there, they love restrictive policies. Anyway, my signature image here is named "User Ereanor...etc" because the preferences are copied over and I just uploaded it here with that name, like most of us from GWW did. Now, that's not a problem since I'm not proposing changing the "User <username> etc" for signatures, I'm proposing its termination and the end of any similar restriction. So if I have a "User X sign.jpg" signature image I won't need to change it. I really don't understand why some ppl brought that up.reanor 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that we don't need to have the same policy on both wikis. If a sig is allowed here but not on the other wiki, users can use a sig that is allowed here but not on gww if they only contribute here, but they need to make sure that they are following both policies if they contribute to both wikis. Ofcourse even if we don't have to, we probably should, since it makes life easier.

Imo we shouldn't really touch most of the formatting restrictions, since gww talk pages have worked really well, opposed to the GuildWiki pages which are often really hard to read nowdays. The current version with the more lenient link rule is almost perfect, but we could also think about allowing the use of wider signature icons. -- (gem / talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I was under the impression it was copyed from GWW, a sorce were allowed to copy from RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The earliest version is from GuildWiki, which has an incompatible IP system. Deletion would be to purge that material from the history of the article. Backsword 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

K RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 12:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if copied from GWW, you must provide attribution, in the edit summary at the very least. —Tanaric 05:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The version at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Sign your comments/Temp has proper attribution. -- Gordon Ecker 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Temp moved to resolve violation. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sync with GWW at all times?

As of right now, the servers are currently synced to GWW in terms of usernames and their preferences. I noticed this that when I changed my signature on GWW, it changed here. If we had 2 different policys here and there, then the syncing of preferences may cause a problem. Any thoughts? — † Eloc † 08:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not at liberty to demand technical changes like this. I propose accepting them as a condition of our hosting arrangement. —Tanaric 08:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated above, it's not really a problem. Users need to check their sig against the policy. If they contibute both to gww and let's say GWiki then they need to make sure that their sigs at both places follow the respective policies. In the case of gww and gw2w it's exactly the same, users need to make sure that their sig follows the policies of both gww and gw2w if they contribute to both. The technical limitation of forcing users to have the same sig on both wikis doesn't really change anything in that matter. -- (gem / talk) 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't demanding. It was a suggestion for the policy. — † Eloc † 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WAYYYY too strict

Kill this proposal dead. What the hell is wrong with a fucking background on your signature?? And the image restriction should be something more like 50X19, which would allow ppl to actually fit their name into it.--MP47 (Talk) (Contr.) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the exact one that's on GWW. — ク Eloc 貢 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Draft2. Lord Belar 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And the one on GWW is an absolute atrocity --Gimmethegepgun 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the one from GWW. Draft 2 looks perfect, though. Lord Belar 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GWW is strict. Period. Calor (t) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's ensure that we don't make the same fuckups here. Lord Belar 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe us GuildWikians should arrange a hostile takeover or something --Gimmethegepgun 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just calmly put down the gun... Calor (t) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But.... but! My name commands people to gimme the gep gun! I SHALL ASPLODE THE ESTABLISHMENT! MWAHAHAHAHA --Gimmethegepgun 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asplode? Let's see, there's explode, implode, but I've never seen asplode. Is that when you get a boom stick near a...never mind. Calor (t) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Observe where Wikipedia:Asplode redirects to ;) --Gimmethegepgun 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember when that started... Calor (t) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marco starts with a serious comment but you guys made sure anything he touches becomes spam. lol.reanor 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marco's numero uno on 1-800-GW2-SPAM's list for spam, quite likely. Calor (t) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, GWW isn't that strict. — ク Eloc 貢 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Orly? Let's see... max image size 19x19px, so basicaly you're limited to using a profession icon. No backgrounds/highlighted text, despite the fact that it doesn't disrupt anything in the slightest. And if you want to have a shortened version of your name as your sig you have to register a shoepuppet account, link it there, and have THAT redirect to your userspace --Gimmethegepgun 08:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really not that hard to follow/do. — ク Eloc 貢 09:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it isn't strict. When you're spending all your energy worrying about tiny details that have no impact on ANYTHING in the slightest you end up completely forgetting about the things that actually DO matter --Gimmethegepgun 09:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to force inline images to align to the top of the line instead of aligning to the bottom and pushing the line down? That would mitigate the effect of large signature images. -- Gordon Ecker 09:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The img tag has an align attribute, though I'm sure its probably deprecated, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a css property for vertical align. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A signature is to ID someone, not to make some drawing piece of art out of it. GWW's policy recognizes this. GW2W is going to be THE wiki for GW2, if we don't have strict policy its going to be one BIG chaos. ~ SCobra 10:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

and backgrounds on sigs are ugly ¬.¬ - Y0_ich_halt 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to recall insanely strict policies nor massive chaos (once everything got a little bit of organization) on GuildWiki. And when I say background I mean like Marco's sig up there at the top of the section --Gimmethegepgun 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Cobra, does your image in your signature have ANYTHING to do with identifying who you are? No? Well, then I think it's just trying to make "some drawing piece of art out of it", and you're just being a hypocrite --Gimmethegepgun 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say having an image of a cobra would signify Cobra. -- Brains12 • Talk • 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Except, his name is already in his sig, that's just trying to make it pretty, so he's being a hypocrite. Also, it doesn't really look like a cobra to me. Must be because of the fact that you can only use 361 pixels total in it --Gimmethegepgun 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not really, an image makes it easier to identify someone, specially when there are two people with similar names -- Coran Ironclaw 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or the people objecting to having images? I'm all for having images (as long as they're not disruptive) --Gimmethegepgun 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter, Cobra's wrong, we all get it. lol.reanor 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I love hypocrites. They make arguments so much easier --Gimmethegepgun 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of an image is to help identify a person, not to be the sole identifier. Cobra's sig helps to identify him, in comparison to a plain blue link. The point where a sig image goes too far is when it is the sole identifier of that user, for example (a random one that just came to my mind) a wide Vipermagi image with a black background which draws the attention away from the actual text, or something like that. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that Cobra is being a complete hypocrite when he says that images shouldn't be used to make "some drawing piece of art out of it" when the only thing his image does is exactly that. In fact, that's the only thing ANY images used in sigs do. So by his standards, we shouldn't even allow 1 pixel worth of image in our sigs, because it's completely pointless. And how does Viper's sig "draw(s) the attention away from the actual text"? --Gimmethegepgun 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Having lots of users with similar sigs (look at most user talk pages on GuildWiki) is what draws the attention away - you have lots of wide images with backgrounds. Someone with a slow browser or something would take a while getting all those images. And they are just unneat as well. Viper's sig was just an example that came to my head. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are going from having a simple image which Cobra thinks is good (seeing as he agrees with GWW's SIGN) from having absolutely no images at all. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to what Cobra's saying, images that try and make art out of it, AKA putting ANY image at all in there, is against his beliefs. So, he is being a hypocrite by putting an image in there --Gimmethegepgun 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, shall we move from picking at Cobra's alleged hypocrisy about images to actually what should be used/not used? -- Brains12 • Talk • 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say i didn't want a image, i said i down want rainbow signatures.You cant compare this wiki too Guildwiki. Guildwiki started with a phew users, made the policy then the wiki gained popularity, this wiki is going to be popular instant when the game is released. Guilwiki is a fansite, it might have the specialty status but it still is a fansite, this wiki isnt, its hosted by Anet which means people will visit this wiki ten times more than any fansite. Take a look at the pageviews on Guildwiki and on GWW. GWW has less pages, less edits, and has been up for only (almost) year now. ~ SCobra 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then mind telling me your views on the point of playing a game? --Gimmethegepgun 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the ownership by Arenanet and possible in-game integration, both wikis are wikis. Before GWW, I'm sure GuildWiki was considered the official unofficial Guild Wars wiki. My comparison to GuildWiki was also not about content, but about signature images. -- Brains12 • Talk • 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, anyone asking for a strict signature policy is bound to feel my rage.reanor 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a complete restriction on images and background colors. They distract from reading the talk page in a top-down manner. —Tanaric 07:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I support placing restrictions on those who dream of placing restrictions on others, so HAH! --Gimmethegepgun 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And Tanaric's attempt to right the conversation is shot down in flames... I see no need, really, for background color. Now this will likely spark a debate about the fact that images are, technically, unnecessary also. But images do help identify someone though, whether or not it depicts their name in some way or another. I know it's Gem's comment when I see the pink little Gem out of the corner of my eye. I know it's Y0's when I see...whatever it is. Calor (t) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why they are good. My style is good too, a mix between icon and letters.reanor 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to keep the 19x19px images - they are not too "in your face" but still help to identify the user, as Calor said. -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are mainly for discussing content, not showing off (we have user pages?) imo. I don't support any rules on naming and the likes, but keeping the code short and keeping images/colors to a minimum is good. We should also keep in mind all user accounts are linked between GWW and GW2W, which places restrictions on those that use both wikis, indirectly. I don't mean this should form the policy/document here, but it is something to keep in mind. - anja 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first order of business should be to unlink the sig preferences between the 2 wikis. Second, we really shouldn't restrict people too much on sigs, just make it so it isn't massively long (code-wise or page-wise) and doesn't disrupt anything. Anything more than that just causes unnecessary conflicts --Gimmethegepgun 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should get them unlinked, but I'm not sure it's possible. I can agree with the conflict part, but then sysops/admins needs to be given the discretion needed. But it seems that's the way this wiki is heading. Personally, I still think GWW's way of doing it (except for all conflicts obv) is great and mostly not disruptive, but there sure can be ways of not being disruptive and still violating GWW:SIGN. - anja 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with GWW:SIGN, very well put. Now, the wikis should be unlinkable, otherwise if a new GW2 player registers here, he will also be registered in GWW, wich is not what he wanted since he doesn't play GW1.reanor 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you think it is bad thing they also get a GWW account they'll never use and possibly not even know they have? I can't think of how it disadvantages or puts them at risk. I see only that it reduces the chances of malicious spoofing of users which only use one or other wiki. --Aspectacle 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, maybe more importantly, someone could play only 1 of the 2 but have an account on both, and someone else wanted an account with the same name on the other game. Then they can't get the name they want because of someone that doesn't even play that game. However, the preferences definitely need to be unlinked, not even being able to have a different signature only adds to the blandness of GWW's SIGN policy --Gimmethegepgun 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just said it's involuntary. That's wrong enough.reanor 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like they're being forced to join the army or somesuch.  :) I'm not convinced that involuntary account creation in a "sister wiki" hosted by the same folks is something to get worked up about. Wikia does it - get a wikia account you get accounts on those hundreds of speciality wikis you'll surely never use. --Aspectacle 04:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason not to do it (seriously, in the future, NEVER mention Wikia to us GuildWiki Forever's) --Gimmethegepgun 04:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I get where some this hostility is coming from now. :) Does anyone have any info on the technical side of this? Is it actually possible to remove a wiki from a wiki family once they've been set up (and content has been added)? --Aspectacle 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can support the splitting of the user base too. Since we're going to be dealing with two separate games, as time goes by, there will be more and more GW2 players who've never played GW1 before. Of course, there's really nothing wrong with a new user having access to both wikis - sure, they probably won't bother editing GWW, but at least they have the option open; it also doesn't seem so harmful for one registration to open up access to two wikis. Why is that bad? Oh right, all the bashing of the GWW policies I suppose, and all the proposals to make them as different as possible.

I just find it interesting that this is similar to the manner in which GWW started. Previously, it was users who disliked the way GuildWiki does things and bashed their policies and then proceeded to "fix" things on GWW. Now, it's users who disliked the way GWW does things and bashed their policies and then proceeded to "fix" things on GW2W. Interesting no? It's also interesting to note that the proposals here address "issues" with GWW policies that weren't really brought up for serious discussion on GWW itself -- very similar to how GWW proposals for "fixes" never seem to get mentioned on GuildWiki's policies :D

Anyway, just as an extra to point to support a split of the user base, I think the fact that the currently more active users here are in support of making this wiki different from GWW (without any obvious attempt to sync or integrate them) is reason enough to split the users off, to make things simpler, rather than having users to learn the differences between the two wikis despite sharing a login. -- ab.er.rant 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the swings of editor opinion on what makes good wiki governance are insightful and absolutely spot on. I think that, despite what seems to be majority opinion here, GWW policy and attitude is starting to swing (or has swung) to become a balance between the independant sysops on GuildWiki with some additional restrictions and accountability which were initially strongly desirable on GWW. But GWW has cooties - better not touch it. ;)

If it is technically possible that the wikis can be separated without obilterating content then I'm not especially against it. I just don't see strong reasons to support it. --Aspectacle 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The very least (unlinking Preferences) shouldn't really be all that difficult to do. Splitting more than that might be a bit troublesome, but isn't really necessary like Preferences. Since the GuildWiki Forever^TM's (like me) are moving into this wiki along with all the GWW people, there's going to be forced compromises, and policies that involve the Preferences (mainly this one) will be different, making a split a necessity --Gimmethegepgun 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My Beef with it

The part about images really tick me off. Why can't I have two same images on my sig? Frankly, I enjoy looking at cool sigs while browsing through drama on talk pages, it really stops the eyesores from huge blocks of text. Also that bit about 19*19 is really stupid, some people just use a single, nice pic to identify themselves. Let this policy grow organically, instead of jacking an unsuccesful one.

Btw, is my sig disturbing? nuke7 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

now that I read it through, I spot some more crap that should not be there. I'll post it all on tomorrow. nuke7 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsuccessful? It works pretty well over at GWW at the moment and I happen to prefer that to something more similar to GuildWiki's, if that's how you intend for it to go. -- pling | ggggg 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes well because people follow the rules. It doesn't go well because the rules are the way they are. GW:SIGN over at GWiki goes well too. Guess why? Because people follow the rules. --- -- (s)talkpage 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I intend to write it from scratch (or, more conveniantly, make someone else do it). And I know may people who despise GWWSIGN. Wait till tomorrow. Also, Viper is right. nuke7 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been quite a few drafts, with one recently accepted, including requests for comment so if people silently dislike GWW:SIGN, that is their own fault. If people don't like it, they should put their point forward. -- pling | ggggg 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If people don't voice their opinion, they don't deserve to complain. Which is why I'll scour all needed/wanted policies/guidelines etc... And I also plan to write two of my own. To be continued... nuke7 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an opportunity to fix all of the bullshit that people are forced to deal with on GWW. Almost any new idea is bad if it doesn't strictly follow policy, or guidelines which are enforced as if they were the same as policy. The same issue I do not want to see repeated here. Because the admin from GWW was grandfathered over here, they apparently think that this is GWW2, not GW2W.

Instead of just porting policies that are extremely draconian (or at least enforced that way), we should be working on making this place better. Discuss potential problems, and solutions by way of policy, but don't "import something already broke" and try to fix it. 42 - talk 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Pling, people HAVE put their point forward, and they get hammered for it by people who don't agree. 42 - talk 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing you haven't considered is that this wiki is currently a merger of GWW and GuildWiki, so it currently doesn't have to abide by all the policies of GWW. It just so happens that a lot of policies are the same, but this one is different. As per some of the recent disagreements, the policy (and method) of signatures has changed a bit, to allow a difference between GWW and GW2W signatures (which includes use of images). --JonTheMon 08:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is about the dozenth talk page I've seen the whole "GWW's rules suck and people are too rigid about clinging to sucky rules" rant from you. Let me just say, right here, right now, people do not disagree with you because they are opposed to the concept of change. People disagree with you because they don't like the specific things you propose, and I assure you, if people don't like the specific things you propose here, they will (and have) continue(d) to disagree with you. Everything that is policy or guideline on GWW and everything that is common practice on GW2W (and no, those aren't the same) are so because they made good sense to a consensus of people who participated at some time, and nothing that has come along since has made better sense to a consensus of people who participate. Anyone who comes here from another wiki, be it GWW, GuildWiki, or Wikipedia, is going to come bringing predispositions about the rules from those places, either positive or negative, because the rules from those places have either worked for them, or not. Now can we please stick to talking about GW2W on GW2W and GWW on GWW? - Tanetris 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)