Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Sign your comments 2008-01-05

This policy does grant considerably more discretion to admins compared to GWW's policy and the other draft currently at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Sign your comments by subsumming a large amount of rules into the single line "signature must not hinder the readability of talk pages (e.g. by being huge in size or overly distracting)".

I believe that the added discretion is warranted, seeing how GWW's policy was overly complicated and did cause to many controversies. However, that depends on checks on power being in place on our admins here, which I hope there will be. --Xeeron 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Simple, and lets "disrupting" be interpreted on a case by case basis, rather than blanket bans. Lord Belar 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the first rule states you must include the link to your page or talk page, but doesn't say the link has to display your name. Is it stated this way to make it flexible for users who want to abbreviate their name? It seems like I can sign like this Xeeron and would not be breaking this policy. Of course that shouldn't be allowed, but I'm not sure if that needs mentioning or if admin discretion would already cover it. Also, should there be a rule about requiring a date when you sign? Tedium 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if you sign as Xeeron, you are not using a signature that is uniquely identifying, but you are correct, that should be repeated under rules. --Xeeron 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

/Agree. I like the policy because Vipermagi's signature, I believe, would violate policy on GWW for having a background. But is it readable? Yes. Is it a blaring, flashing, disruptive sign? No. Does it link to a talk/userpage of his? Yes. Is he masquerading as another user? No. Is it huge? No. Perfectly acceptale, but violates crazy, detailed policies. And it'd be nice to link to GWW/GW for the time being, where most people's userpages are much more developed. Calor (t) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy basically allows any signature to be made because of the: not hinder the readability of talk pages part. This means that if someone creates a 500 character signature hes allowed to use it if he "beat down" a discussion ~ SCobra 10:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because a 500 character sig would be disruptive. Lord Belar 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think adding a rule about a date is necessary. There are some drop research pages on Guild Wars Wiki that didn't require them. Tedium 10:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy looks great. Hopefully, sysops here will have sufficient discretion to apply it effectively.Cassie 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine too and will be a good initial policy. Amendments once the admin policy is established can come later. -- ab.er.rant 06:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd like to see some more examples of what might be considered "disruptive." I personally think images higher than 19px qualify (since it affects how the text displays), and there should probably be a guideline for sig length. IMO. MisterPepe talk 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be the policy and examples or restrictions could be set up in a separate guideline document or in a help page for setting up and using a signature? --Aspectacle 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add the no background thing please -- Coran Ironclaw 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is possible to have a non disruptive background, and if it is disruptive, then it can still be removed under this policy. Lord Belar 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a font colour, not a background. -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is rather disruptive. :P Lord Belar 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a background and a font colour. A background takes up more space, is more concentrated, and so is more distractive. Colourful, and even bright, fonts aren't as disruptive - tbh I think a bright colour (like that green) looks less conspicuous than a dark colour. -- Brains12 • Talk • 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how something like Marco's old sig that had a background (MP47) is disruptive. I'd really like to know --Gimmethegepgun 02:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as any more disruptive than an image. --Aspectacle 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. And if Marco made the MP an image, then redirected it to his talk page, and then kept the 47 linking to his userpage, then it'd be perfectly legit. GWW's is a bit too strict, imo. The sig shown above is in absolutely no way disruptive unless you're running a computer made in the '70's that doesn't display color or something. Calor (t) 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was comparing a bacckground to a font colour, and saying it was more disruptive than a font colour, not that all backgrounds were disruptive. Out of the sig with a background and the bright green font, I notice the background one more. -- Brains12 • Talk • 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(in response to Coran) I think it's a lot better to leave the "not disruptive" open and not write everything down like we tried with GWW. People are smart, and like to show loopholes in rules. More leeway in application means truly disruptive things are dealt with but less "your sig is not really disruptive but it violates this tiny word". - anja 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now with more guideline

I've drafted a guideline doc to go alongside this policy that I mentioned before. I've stuck possible problems into two rough categories; possibly acceptable and never allowed. I don't have a strong opinion about where I put each of the problems - so please mess that around at will. I guess we could discuss it on that page, but maybe it'd be a good idea to focus all of the signature discussion here? --Aspectacle 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)