Forum:SH Archive/User sig policy

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/User sig policy

I just closed the ancient "Forum:Restrictions on custom user signatures" CT thread. That means that we now have an official signature policy.

The Signature policy allows users to have:

1. One appropriate picture; appropriate meaning a small, non-animated, and inoffensive icon that is no larger than 20 pixels.
2. One font color.
3. An optional link to your user talk page.

So if your signature does not meet the established policy, please modify it. Thanx.–Sentry^Talk 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think I'm leaving Wookieepedia just in time. :P Roron Corobb

^Talk 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Yours is fine, though, Roron. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thought it said one font color? I happen to have two. Roron Corobb

^Talk 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Oh, so you do. Well, that's all you need to change, I guess. 8)—Silly Dan _(talk) 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Poor WildYoda...DarthMRN 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ouch. Hope mine wasn't THAT glaring and obnoxious... nice to know you're well-known though. :) Actually, I don't mind the policy. I suppose it makes it look a little less like a message board full of 12-year-olds (No offense to any pre-teens here). I just wanted to experiment once I figured out how the heck to do the custom sig thing. Back to boring now... Wildyoda 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a contrib link? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• The result of the Consensus Track discussion was to allow only an optional talk page link.–Sentry ^Talk 06:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• That doesn't make sense. And I never saw anything on the page going against or for having a link to your contributions.\/ladius File:Dasymbol.gif 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The truth is, the only reason we came up with a policy was due to a minority of users whose sigs had seventeen font colours and three great big animated .gifs (well, not really, I exaggerate a bit.) None of these users we objected to (most of whom have since left) had links to their contributions pages, so no one thought to make a policy about that. I suppose if we wanted, we could start another CT thread suggesting amendments to the policy, but a signature policy of some sort was long overdue. (I think I'll put the results of the latest CT thread at Wookieepedia:Signature policy anyway.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Testing monochrome sig . . . Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is my signature okay? Brain40 ^{[Sarlacc victim chat]} File:Sarlacc(2).jpg 13:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Asking what Brain40 is. ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • • They seem fine to me, but you must put "subst:" in when you're using the template, OK? —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Hmm... I don't know why but when I put the "subst:" in the "nickname" slot on my Preferences, my sig is all broken. Any ideas? ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
              • It's because you have a fullstop in it. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
                • The CT thread actually does address linking to pages other than your talk page. The third option "Keep them the way they are now" (which received no votes) stated: "This option means keeping excessive tags in your sig like multiple font colors, the {{PAGENAME}} tag and links to things other than your talk page.". Therefore, if interpreted strictly, the result of the CT thread states that only links to your talk page are allowed. Of course, the new policy can (and probably should) be amended in another CT thread.–Sentry ^Talk 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Of course. Another thing: there are a lot of loopholes in it. I think we should have a limit on characters in the sig, not restrictions on links or other useful things. For example, you could choose to be stupid (or spiteful) and waste the WikiCode anyway, by simply making it really dang long, linking every single letter, coloring every single letter in the same color, alternating with the <small> tags, and uploading horrendously huge pictures that at 20px are still horrendously huge. Okay, I might just be being stupid with that last one, because I'm not that sure that the pixel thing works that way. Mesa propose that we limit it to about 100 characters or less maximum above a link to your page, which would limit everything else inherently anyway. My personal opinion: 100 characters, 2 font colors, 1 picture at 25px or less, 2 links above your page link.\/ladius |\/|agnumFile:Dasymbol.gif 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • That sounds pretty good Vladius. The 100 characters thing would make it very precise and not subject to different opinions and the like. ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Fullstop? What do you mean? ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Nevermind, found it. The period, right? ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay}
• One problem with limiting the number of characters is enforcement. Who has the time to count characters?–Sentry ^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, some are obvious law-breakers in terms of characters. I mean, you wouldn't have to go through every userpage to check if their sig is ok, but if you notice a large waste of wikicoding on a talk page or WP:QotD or somewhere else, then you can check it. If it meant that I'd get to have a contrib link in my sig, I'd be one of these "enforcers". ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I modified my sig. is this good? --Scwhinky^Communicate File:Fettrockz.gif 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah that looks good Scwhinky. On another note, I think we really need to address nested <sup> and <sub> tags ^likethis. They really distort the page formatting.–Sentry ^Talk 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. The only problem with a limit on characters is counting them. However, like Jorrel said, there are ways of estimation. We won't enforce it if it's 101 characters or something; it's just a generalization. As for the subtext and supertext tags, they should only be for links, and short ones at that.\/ladius |\/|agnumFile:Dasymbol.gif 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we add a rule saying that anyone who uses HTML must know how to use it properly? Because it's annoying going around fixing people's sigs because they turned the page blue or green or whatever. -- I need a name (Complain here) 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again, that would not really be enforceable. Maybe we should just create a list or category of technically minded Wookieepedians who would be willing to help… the "Wookieepedia slicers". =)–04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if something to that degree were to be made, I'd be one of the first to sign up. ^{Commander Jorrel Fraajic} _{Communications Relay} 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• I added the changes discussed above to a new CT thread: Forum:Sig policy revisited.–Sentry^Talk 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)