SmashWiki talk:Sign your comments/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Credits

This page has been (selectively) copied from GuildWiki. --Shadowcrest 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

sup/sub

I agree with many of your ideas here about how to keep signatures under control. The one part I have the biggest problem with? ^sup and _sub. Many users use the superscript function; even Randall signs with something close to "RJM^Talk". I think that the rest is pretty good. Miles (talk - contribs) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew that would be a point of contention. Apparently it breaks line spacing, though tbh I've never noticed. Remove it if you want. --Shadowcrest 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also, could you take a look at my image project? I know it's not very good yet, and I'd appreciate your help in improving it. Miles (talk - contribs) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

external links

Honestly, I don't think that's really appropriate for here. If the user can fit the external link in their signature, than they should be allowed to have it there, i.m.o. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does an external link serve in a signature? In particular, why put it in a sig which will go on various pages (wts link spamming) as opposed to a userpage? --Shadowcrest 18:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've noticed, but I've got an external link in mine. ;) --Sky (t · c · w) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Shadowcrest/policy/SIGN#Internal_links]] permits a central wikia link. Idk if that should be counted as internal/external, but w/e. Any non-central-wikia externals do you think should be allowed? --Shadowcrest 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, fail. Uh... I guess a link to another userpage on a different wikia is ok, but if the policy isn't worded very specifically it'll be abused. Propose amendments here? --Shadowcrest 20:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, further, on WoW, my signature has a link to my profile on Wowhead. Really, it's an issue of how relevant, and whether it can be fit. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How relevant is relevant? WoWWiki isn't relevant to SmashWiki :/ --Shadowcrest 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In a smash example, maybe a link to the user's AiB or Smashboards profile might work. O, Mighty Smoreking 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How about no outside links except to a central wiki user page or a single user page on another wiki where you are an admin? Anyway, lets get this puppy implemented as policy. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an awkward line, but I guess that can be changed later. Implementing now... --Shadowcrest 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sig boxes

A few users (such as ?Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) (Contribs)? and Smorekingxg456 ) have boxes for their sig. I find it disruptive, and should be disallowed imo. What do other people think? --Shadowcrest 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So does user:kirkburn, and he's managed to get away with it for a year at least now (not here, but at WoWiki). ;D

That said, those are a little big imo. I personally find the "Posted by" and the picture to be most distracting, rather than the boxes themselves. And actually, I'm to the point of suggesting that pictures be removed permanent from signatures, as they produce other issues other than sizing issues. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you say boxes, but no images? I'm just trying to follow.SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed what I said, so long as you can fit the code of your signature into a respectable number of lines. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure.SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to length

Since 3 lines is subject to various things like browser, resolution, like and such as, I would like to propose that that line be changed to the following:

"Signatures that have more code than will fit in the signature box in preferences clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures."

What do people feel about this? --Shadowcrest 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel they shouldn't be long enough to cover two lines of a page. Koopa Klaus 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you in concept, Shadowcrest, but for users such as myself with longer usernames, that box fills up faster than for those with shorter usernames. I'm not sure if your proposal should be changed in any way relating to this, but I thought it important to point out. Miles (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Use an abbreviation, like you have. For example, your username (miles) is only 6 characters longer than mine, and 6 characters shorter when you only use miles. --Shadowcrest 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, links like [[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer]] start out long, and that's before the addition of something like [[Special:Contributions/Miles.oppenheimer]]. Thoughts? Miles (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair point, but in my opinion is outweighed by the fact that many users here have signatures that are extraordinarily long. --Shadowcrest 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. I'll say I agree with the proposal. Miles (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone provides valid opposition to this proposal I'd like to change the line tomorrow. --Shadowcrest 00:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely back this, signatures should be nice and simple. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bit unbalanced to users like me and Miles, beacuse we do have long usernames, and people on this wiki might not know who 'IBB' is por exemple, so I think we need to find a way around this... Ike's Best Buddy/ Bird Of Prey^{Don't try me}

I think a great way to cut down on length without having a specific requirement is just to put a stop to this nonsense of having each word or even letter of a signature colored. That is where the majority of the length of these signature codes come from, and it adds nothing but eye distractions to the pages. I say you get one color change and font change per signature. If you want to only do half of it in the change and leave the other to default that's fine, but I none of this <span style="color:gold">C</span><span style="color:red">l</span><span style="color:blue">a</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:violet">i</span><span style="color:slategray">n</span><span style="color:black">e</span><span style="color:yellow">e</span><span style="color:olive">t</span> just to get Clarineet. That's just silly. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe...

I think it might be a good idea to let people link to their Crew or Team, because it is involved with a smasher in a large way, and people are very proud of their crew(s)... Ike's Best Buddy/ Bird Of Prey^{Don't try me}

But that would just add more to the signature, making it more complicated. I don't mean to shut you out, IBB, and I luv respect you, but it would make the sig longer and that's not necessary. Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Especially considering the people who would do it don't even have crews that are important to the Smash community. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that you're posting this after I told you to remove the internal link.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

all 3 links?

In regards to User talk:RosalieH, does a user need all 3 links (user/talk/contr), or any of the 3? --Shadowcrest 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I said just Page and talk.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Do we want to require both, or should we leave the option open? --Shadowcrest 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I opt for both, as thy are both included in the standard signature here.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should allow people to choose :p

So, wtb more opinions thx --Shadowcrest 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, that you want to allow people to choose with respect to their signatures.
Anyway... leave it to choice, as long as there's a link to their exclusive account. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Animated signatures

So apparently I fail at following all rules and made an animated signature. I've had it for a while, yet I didn't learn until now about this "no animated sigs" rule. So I'm wondering: does everyone agree to the rule? I've only gotten one complaint about animated sigs, and it was because of this rule, not because it was distracting. So should we make changes or modify the rule? - (U • T • C ) 08:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think animated sigs (Like F&W's) Are fine. But ones like my old one (On MS paint, I didn't realize it was actually that big)are too distracting. I say we change the rule to the max number of px = 207,26 MAX. I'm currently creating a newer, smaller signature, and i'm stalling the process of turning it into a .gif file until it's safe to upload from deletion. [[Image:My_signature!.gif] (U-T-C) 11:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they can in fact be distracting sometimes. For example, when you have 5-6 of FnW's sigs on the screen at once, it can be kinda distracting to see 6 names go up in flames, or get splashed. I think the size of FnW's should be the max if we do allow them, but I honestly don't like them and they're distracting. I spend more time trying to figure out what TBB's says then actually reading the comments.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We have no way to differentiate between borderline animated sigs like Silverdragon's and seizure inducing ones that just sit and flash. So, I am opposed to animated sigs. --Shadowcrest 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you would let Silver change the name she links with, then maybe it wouldn't be a problem, because for her, the sig image isn't just decoration. Sig images in general should be disallowed. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I like how you beat the dead horse there. --Shadowcrest 22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only a dead horse to you. Everyone else is apathetic, more or less. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't care why bring it up?

It's a dead horse because the arguments are the same as last time and the decision isn't going to change. I wish I had a different username too, but that doesn't change anything. --Shadowcrest 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but you're an idiot. --Sky (t · c · w) 15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please enlighten me, though I suggest you do it while refraining from making personal attacks. --Shadowcrest 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, if an argument is going to break out every time I make a suggestion for a change, maybe I'll just stop suggesting changes. Would a simple slow fade be better or should I just go back the to the long text one that everyone complained about? - (U • T • C ) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you know my feelings on the matter... alternately, fyrenwater isn't a registered account- I don't think C.Hawk would have a problem giving you your sysop rights if you decided to switch. --Shadowcrest 00:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be sockpuppeting? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if Silverdragon706 was permabanned after the transition. Also, what would it matter? Everyone would know. Gutripper^Speak 07:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It would matter because it would still be bending the rules, exactly the thing we're trying to avoid in this situation. But maybe if the Silverdragon account were to be perma-banned, then it shouldn't be an issue. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Socking is only a problem if it's disruptive or malicious. And to be socking people need to be decieved, and given that this discussion happened any deceit is gone. --Shadowcrest 19:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So... what's the consensus? - (U • T • C ) 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't. Smoreking and myself are opposed and TBB thinks it's fine- nobody else has commented. If we're going to go by simple majority rule then it currently stands at no, but I doubt you're satisfied with that and tbh neither am I. --Shadowcrest 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my signature to a simpler fading one. It's still animated, but I think think it's less distracting (main reason for disallowing animated sigs, right?) Does anyone have any complaints about it? - (U • T • C ) 08:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Tbh, whatever. Go ahead and sign as FyreNWater or whatever- it's not that important to me. As long as you pick a name and stick with it, I don't care with what you sign as (as long as it doesn't conflict with someone's actual username, that is).

So, my revised opinion is, go ahead and sign with whatever, as long as you're going to stick with that name or your username. Just please don't use an animated image. --Shadowcrest 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no matter. Someone decided to pretend to be me with the FyreNWater username (who has since been perma-banned). I'll stick with this short text signature unless anyone complains. SD706/FnW - (U•T•C ) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention users of SmashWiki

Many of you are violating this line of SW:SIGN.

The icon's image file should be exclusive for the signature, not shared with anything in SmashWiki. This allows for a redirect on the image file to the user page or the user talk page. Note: The image can be a duplicate of another image, if it's resized appropriately.

Either this clause should be deleted due to the sheer number of violations, or you all should go fix your shit. That is all. – Emmett 23:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Agree with above. Mr. Anontalk 23:41, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

...what specifically do you agree with? I presented 2 options, "yes" is not an answer... – Emmett 23:43, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

The best choice would be to remove that clause, as the other option is much more difficult to carry out. Mr. Anontalk 23:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Or people could just stop having bad signatures... Also, most pics in sigs are 23px, which is too big. Could we have a crackdown on that, cos it gives talk pages weird spaces between lines. PenguinofDeath 16:58, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Is that a dig at Anon's sig? Or just generally? ToastUltimatum Complaints Box 17:14, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, I misread that a little bit, PoD. Anyways, Abolish, it's a pointless rule. ToastUltimatum Complaints Box 17:18, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Yeah we've really not been doing very well with the signature enforcement thing lately. Course it doesn't help that nowadays it seems every new user has the predisposition that a signature must have a userpage link, an image, and a talk page link in that order.

So what should we do, make the sitenotice say "Sig rules are currently badly enforced, you have a week to fix them before we get serious"? We couldn't fix any previous sigs but at least we'd get back on track. Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 17:25, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I would have to agree with Toomai's idea. For why these violating sigs got through, I would attribute it to the violated rule not being readily apparent, which also applies to sig images that are just slightly too large. Omega Tyrant 17:32, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I support the above. ..... 1998, 1999-2011 2010-2011 17:35, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

PoD: I use 19px for my sig image. ..... Trading card game 17:46, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, I then realized that actually people use all sorts of sizes. However big your sig image is, if it's bigger than a certain size (16px, I think), it pushes the next line down. PenguinofDeath 19:49, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I must ask why this rule is in place - The icon's image file should be exclusive for the signature, not shared with anything in SmashWiki. Why should it be that way? For example, a Roy head in RoyboyX's signature just makes sense, so why ban it just because it's used on the Roy (SSBM) article? Of course, the fact that some are too big obviously is a problem, but that aspect confuses me. ToastUltimatum Complaints Box 17:51, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

The idea here is that we want to keep things that are used in articles seperate from things that are used by users. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 19:03, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

The idea is actually that-- should File:FalcoHeadSSBB.png ever be changed for a legit mainspace reason, every page that User:..... has ever signed doesn't change to reflect the new image. The only time his signature image would ever change is if he uploaded a new version of it. --User:Emmett 20:14, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Toomai's idea for the reasons already stated, and also will agree with making the size limit of images 16 px high, if that happens to come up. DokteurPain99 20:22, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

No templates

I see no real problem with having signature templates. The explanation given in the policy page is very weak; many things are common vandalism targets, which we never use as a reason to not allow something, and any vandalism on the templates would be simple to fix. Plus, the average vandal wouldn't know about these templates and/or how to get to them. Omega Tyrant 22:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

I understand that serious red-link problems can occur in the case of a deletion of a signature template, but otherwise I have no objection. Mr. Anontalk 22:50, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

We would have no reason though to delete them, nor would users need to make multiple templates. Plus, the same problem can occur with images, which are allowed. Omega Tyrant 22:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Are you planning to actually address the server resource issue or just conveniently ignore it? – Emmett 14:05, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

How much of a drain on server resources is it? That policy was written when we were part of Wikia, right? I'm not very tech savy, so can someone explain the matter more? Mr. Anontalk 14:18, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Then that should be written why they're not allowed in the policy, rather than saying them being vulnerable to vandalism is why they're not allowed. Omega Tyrant 14:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

"Transclusions and parser functions in signatures are avoidable drains on server resources. Transcluded signatures require extra processing. Whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached. " Reading is hard.

Anon: Among the top 100 most-linked to pages in the wiki, there are 15 users (and sometimes associated talk pages). The top linked user is Clarinet Hawk, with almost 700 links. If CHawk had been using a template for his signature, and he decided to change it, all 700 of those pages he's signed on have to be recached-- now suppose all 15 of those top-linked users changed their signature. – Emmett 14:54, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Ah, I see now. Yeah templates in signatures would not be a good idea. Mr. Anontalk 15:05, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I did read that, but isn't it referring to tags that use transclusions/parser functions, rather than referring specifically to templates? Omega Tyrant 15:53, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Templates are used by transcluding. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 15:55, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

What about parser functions? Omega Tyrant 16:23, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I believe parser functions have to be recalculated on every page load, though it depends on whether their results can be cached. Using parser functions for random signatures would definitely cause constant recalculation if you don't use substitution. Toomai Glittershine The Different 12:44, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Image rule reworking

From the section two above, we need to re-evaluate the rules about images in signatures. I can see four possibilities:

1. Keep the rule as-is and start enforcing it better.
2. Enforce the rule better and remove the ability to use a duplicate of a mainspace image. We don't want loose duplicates running around if someone changes the image they're using. The idea is, if you want an image, is has to be yours and yours alone.
3. Change to rule to read "If you want an image, it must be UsernameSigImage.ext" or "If you want an image, it must be in Category:Signature images". Keeps things consistent and allows easy categorization. Would require a rule about how often they can be changed.
4. Disallow images entirely. A bad idea in my opinion but an idea nevertheless.

Toomai Glittershine The Different 12:44, 6 January 2012 (EST)

I like rule 3. We can do both rules; if we only want to do one of them, I'd rather have the Category:Signature images be put into effect. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 16:24, 6 January 2012 (EST)

rule 3-B (aka the "category: sig pics" rule)Pokémonultimate The Hero of WINds 19:55, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Notice that your "the idea is..." part of rule 2 is exactly what the current policy is supposed to reflect. The only thing the currently policy doesn't have going for it is that it's utterly unenforced-- which is a problem of administration, not a problem of policy. I'd prefer fixing the former as opposed to amending the latter unnecessarily :p – Emmett 18:16, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Addendum: Also note that I called for such 3 months ago, 2 sections up. I still believe actually stepping up this time is the best option. – Emmett 18:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

The reason I'm thinking about rule tweaks in addition to enforcing is that it's currently possible for someone to upload a scad of duplicate images for their sig and not use all of them, and if someone changes their sig image a lot (something that should also be canned) we end up with a lot of duplicates that are used infrequently at best. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 19:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)

imo, #4 is the only way to go. Sig images are never necessary. PenguinofDeath 18:55, 9 January 2012 (EST)

While not "necessary" they, when used properly, are an additional way to quickly identify the user. Humans are a lot better at quickly identifying images than text. Sig images have also been allowed for the entire history of the wiki so I'm highly against removing them outright. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 19:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)

• I support #3. --HavocReaper48 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
• Rule 3 seems like the best way to go. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
• As with the others, I agree that Rule 3 would be the superior choice, as it allows users to have the freedom of any image in their signature with no restriction against it. Toast ltimatum 08:43, 13 January 2012 (EST)

• 3, since it is quite difficult for people to make their own images and this keeps confusion (e.g. if users put a different name for a signature image than we would expect. LightningBlue: Electric! 19:39, 13 January 2012 (EST)