Forum:CT:Sig policy revisited

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sig policy revisited

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was:

  • Colors: No consensus, original policy of 1 color remains.
  • Length: No consensus, no policy.
  • Links: One relevant link.
  • Superscript/subscript nesting: Do not allow.
  • Bolding: Bolding is OK, provided the signature fits all other requirements as well.
  • Name: Must have actual user name, or what user name is, such as a representative picture, in signature.

—Xwing328(Talk) 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have a signature policy (Wookieepedia:Signature policy), I think that we need to do a little more work on it. Over at Forum:User sig policy, several possible changes have been discussed and I am going to put each amendment up for a vote. Feel free to add additional options.–Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Apart from the default hyperlink text color, how many additional colors should we allow?–Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1 color (current policy)

  1. Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The sig isn't artwork, it's a signature. How many people need two (or more) pens to sign their checks at home? jSarek 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. JMAS 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Havac 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per jSarek. Save the Van Gogh stuff for your userpage.--Valin Kenobi 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Sikon 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Ozzel 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2 colors

  1. I'm not sure if I would change it back to my old sig, but I would at least like the option to. --Yoshi626 05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. I'm not sure if I'd use it (look at my sig) but it's always nice to have the option. Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I don't think it's very disruptive to have 2 colors, as long as the wikicode isn't too messed up.\/ladius |\/|agnum 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think some people enjoy having a Technicolor Dream-sig. Sir You Know My Name, N.K.-S.R.T. 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I actually found it useful to find my own name in long discussions I hadn't visited in a while. And two colors to be decorative is a totally different thing than changing every letter of your name. Wildyoda 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Black's not a colour, but I fear for my vanity sig. .... 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. --ScwhinkyCommunicate File:Fettrockz.gif 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. I think this concession is not that big of a deal. Doesn't expand the wikicode too much. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. I need a name (Complain here) 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. One for link to user page, one for talk page...I don't think that is too much to ask... Jagged Fel, the man formerly known as Humorbot (Yo!)JagFel
  12. perhaps one color for userpage and another for talk page. 2 colors in all. Mandofett 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Anything wrong with this sig? No images though. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Seems reasonable. —Gonk (Gonk!) 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No Policy

  1. --Jump!! 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Question: Does the "1 color policy" include the standard link color (like for R2-D2) or is it one basic color for everything (like my sig)? Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The standard link color is seperate. Basically, it means having only one font color tag in your sig, like mine. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah ha. That was my question also, as my previous sig just had an extra color in the superscript. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't possibly like this.--Jump!! 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Above is my signature re-adjusted to fit the current signature policy. I do not like the color part of the policy at all. NEVER WILL. Unless there is no policy.--Jump!! 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Length

Should we limit the length of signatures?–Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Limit to 100 characters

Definately limit. And, although somewhat hard to enforce, I'd gladly lead the charge. Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. DEFINITELY limit. The main problem with sigs isn't that they're obnoxious in their final form, but they make it a nightmare to read talkpages with sigs whos code is longer than most of the comments. Not to say that the final forms of the more obnoxious ones AREN'T an annoyance. jSarek 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. My idea in the first place, not to brag.\/ladius |\/|agnum 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    It's all right; you can brag if you want to. Sir You Know My Name, N.K.-S.R.T. 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I think this is really the main thing that we HAVE a signature policy for, keeping things manageable. And I don't think it really WILL be that hard to enforce now that we HAVE a policy, seeing as we'll start to notice the more obnoxious/rule-bending sigs now. Wildyoda 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Havac 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. If I become admin, I'm not going to nitpick over this one, but outrageous sigs should definitely be limited. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. These obnoxious sigs are really starting to bug me. -- Ozzel 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Limit to 50 visible characters and/or 350 invisible characters

  1. Less vague. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. This seems OK. Although I don't think the invisbile characters matter much within reason. - Fnlayson 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yoshi626 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oh, boo hoo. If you can't figure out where a sig starts and ends you shouldn't be near a Wiki anyway. .... 06:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Thefourdotellipsis says it well.--Jump!!23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes, he does. Sir You Know My Name, N.K.-S.R.T. 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. This would be the best.--ScwhinkyCommunicate File:Fettrockz.gif 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No policy

  • Not really no policy, but sign your sigs like mine is for this comment, which will cut down drastically on page clutter. Then follow the other sig policies, which will bring individual signatures down to a reasonable length. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with this more. I mean, my sig code is slightly longer than Xwing's. My thoughts are that if the code is small and doesn't mess up other coding, there isn't anything wrong with it.--Jump!! 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Per Xwing328.–SentryTalk 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yoshi626 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Note that this will be somewhat difficult to enforce.–Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Does this mean 100 coded characters (such as <span>) or 100 visible characters? My current sig uses 121 characters, and it is very plain, so I presume you mean what's actually visible. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I have no idea. It wasn't my idea, but it seems to me that if we are talking about wiki code a 100 character limit is too low and if we are talking about output it is too high.–Sentry Talk 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that we need to rethink this one a bit. Note that 158 wiki markup characters are required to generate my fairly simple signature, and I have a relatively short user name and have included no images…–Sentry Talk 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • And your sig takes up two lines of space when editing, which is too much as far as I'm concerned, though I realize I'm probably in the minority on this. jSarek 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Sentry: What was the problem again with signing a sig like {{User:Xwing328/sig}} instead of using subst? It would definitely cut down on the messiness this way. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't have a problem with that format. It is the format that I was using for six months or more. I am not sure, but I think that other users believe signatures should be substituted so that they do not use up server resources…–SentryTalk 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Due to the vague discription of this policy, I've made a new one. Input is suggested. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's probably a bad idea to start the second option when the first one already has eight votes. We might need to hold off on the length vote until later. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at my sig for this comment, it shows how we can eliminate the problem of talk page cluttering. I had actually used this before, but changed it for some unknown reason. In my preferences, I have it set to {{SUBST:User:Xwing328/sig1}}, and on User:Xwing328/sig1, it has {{User:Xwing328/sig}}, which is where the actual signature is stored at. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I just did the same thing for my sig (so, later, if I want to change my sig, all of my old sigs will rebound to the new one) Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The main reason for this is to save system resources: if everyone has non-substituted templates, it takes longer for a talk page to load because it needs to access every signature. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • How much longer? Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I asked Sikon about this, and he said he didn't think it slowed it down much, if any. In fact, he said that nearly all Uncyclopedia users with custom sigs use this method. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

What links should we allow in the signature?–Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No additional links

  1. Anything you might link to can be reached via your user page. It's one more click in exchange for significantly cleaning up talk pages. Vanity sigs serve no purpose. Havac 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree 100%. It's not that difficult to click on thru.--Valin Kenobi 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page (current policy)

Sentry Talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Even this might be a bit much, but I'm willing to go with it since it already passed muster in the first vote. jSarek 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Having a link to your talk page is ok, but I feel having a link to your contribs is pushing it. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Having a contribution link seems like showing off. Maybe not. Anyway don't think it helps. Fnlayson 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page & contributions

Yoshi626 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with letting someone see what you've been doing.\/ladius |\/|agnum 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neither do I. Sir You Know My Name, N.K.-S.R.T. 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. The {{unsigned}} template contains a contribs link. Obviously somebody else thought it was useful before, and that's an officially sanctioned utility template. Wildyoda 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Where's the problem? .... 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Patricknoddy The Jedi Council

One relevant link

Talk page, or contributions link, or user page on other wiki, or any one other relevant link, in addition to the user page link. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. This is actually better than the talk only. Use your extra link for whatever you like, so long as you only have one. jSarek 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. JMAS 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. If there are more links than this it gets annoying. Chack Jadson 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. One link to do with as you please. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sounds fair.–Sentry Talk 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moved my vote. Fnlayson 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page and one relevant link

  1. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thanks Culator... Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. This sounds good. --Yoshi626 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. \/ladius |\/|agnum 13:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I need a name (Complain here) 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. --ScwhinkyCommunicate File:Fettrockz.gif 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. I hate changing my mind: but I'm reminded of {{unsigned}}, which gives a talk page link and a contributions link for people who haven't caught on to the four tildes trick yet. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No policy

  1. I like being able to have a multi-purpose sig. It is cool, compact, and it links for all of them. I will retool my default sig. The thing is a mile long and that's why I made my alternate sig. I think that as long as they are compact, there shouldn't be a problem with it.--Jump!!23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Especially since you use the {{User_talk:Ultric Sandov/sig}}, which completely shrinks all the coding... Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

What about a "Talk page & one revelant link?" For example, expand on the "Talk page & contributions" section to include another link instead of the contrib link? Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Superscript and subscript

Should we disallow nested superscript and subscript tags likethis?–Sentry Talk 05:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disallow nested <sub> and <sup> tags

  1. Sentry Talk 05:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Messing up the formatting to have a cuter signature is not a good idea. jSarek 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. YES!! StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Something I agree with.\/ladius |\/|agnum 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yea, verily. Sir You Know My Name, N.K.-S.R.T. 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Death to nesting. Wildyoda 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Definitely no! - JMAS 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. One or other but not both super and subscripts. - Fnlayson 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. This Is incredibly annoying and should be punishable by death. (Except when used to make a point, obviously. :-P) Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, that completely screwed up the entire page... Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks much better in Firefox than IE. In Firefox, it doesn't cause lines to overlap. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Now this, I would enforce. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Good God, that's horrible. Time for it to go. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Please tell me no one has actually attempted this. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Ozzel 23:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Saying no to the nest. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No policy

Comments

Does "nested" mean dual <sup> and <sub> or does it include with sigs like mine? Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nested means that you have one embedded within the other. Your sig is fine. The reason why I think they should be outlawed is that they really screw up the page formatting.–SentryTalk 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Whistler voted ;) Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere and resolved already, but what do others think about the bold type in sigs? I'd vote to get rid of it.--Valin Kenobi 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Is it too "distracting"?\/ladius |\/|agnum 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see a problem with it. It doesn't mess up formatting, and as long as it fits within the length limits. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've used it because I find it easier to find my contributions when my sig is both bolded and an odd color. But I wouldn't be crushed if I had to de-bold. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actual name in sig

Here's something for the good citizens of Wookieepedia to think about - having their actual username in their signature. How's that for an idea? I know this was touched upon some time ago, but now, it's getting out of hand. Who's who? I don't know. I really don't know.

Have actual user name in sig, or have what your username is in your sig

  1. .... 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I need a name (Complain here) 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, otherwise I could sign my name like this: Thefourdotelipsis 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC). —Xwing328(Talk) 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I was tempted to vote for option two just because of the heading, though. Havac 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Actual username (or some translation or representation of the actual username) should be in there. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. A person who is not StarNeptune 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. I don't want to have to hover over your name just to know who you are. -- Ozzel 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. That other guy 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. It's really obnoxious to try to refer to this person. Are you IG-Prime? IG-2000? Count Dooku? Who knows?! (Sorry man- first example I could think of.) Wildyoda 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Valin Kenobi 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Patricknoddy The Jedi Council

Allow non-user names in signature

  1. So long as you link to your actual userpage, and don't use someone else's username, I don't mind. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Silly Dan. --Yoshi626 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I need not say anything.--Jump!! 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. ATATatarismall.png 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • So... wait. Is mine ok? It's kind of confusing. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, because you have the name Jorrel Fraajic in it. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's what I thought. Just making sure. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.