Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Sign your comments 2008-01-18

I don't think a signature should be a way to "..create a users wiki personality and show their creativity...". They should be for identification. Stop. We have user pages for personality and creativity, imo. - anja 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll reword that point. --Aspectacle 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I WANNA PWETTYFUL WAINBOW SIGNATURE!!!! Userpages = creativity. Signatures = Definition. Calor (t) 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded harsh, was on my way to school and couldn't find an appropriate way to reword it myself. Thanks, Aspectacle. :) - anja 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't come across as overly harsh, Anja. I think that what I said was true, but I also agree the issue shouldn't be clouded by wishy-washy statements on creativity. :) --Aspectacle 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A big and a small point. First the big one: What is the reason you put the "Appearance and color" part here in the guideline (which will not be enforcable) instead of a policy proposal? And the small one: Please let's not force people to create sockpuppets simply for sign issues. --Xeeron 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no one gives a shit as long as it's not disruptive. Lord Belar 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, there is no point in making the shoepuppet accounts, especially since that practice would basically make it so people obsessed with details would make, say Jioruji Derako make an account name that doubles the size of the address because it would be using a million hexadecimal codes for his signature ( Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^) --Gimmethegepgun 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here's the exact address that hexadecimal would be: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/User:J%C3%AF%C3%B6r%C3%BCj%C3%AF_%C3%90%C4%93r%C4%81k%C5%8D --Gimmethegepgun 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made this a guideline primarily because the conversation which was going on for the sign your comments policy draft was leaning towards minimal definition on what constituted "...hinder[ing] the readability of talk pages". That draft 2 policy is completely enforcable as it is, if that's the way you let the sysops run the shop. It takes away a users ability to nit-pick and try to mess with the rules by simply removing all but their broadest definitions. But that doesn't help me as a user know what a sysop is likely going to tell me is disruptive if anything all. It doesn't help me know, when for the 5th time I've created a disruptive signature, that there are some established norms for this and it isn't a personal vendetta against me. I think it is important to document the common knowledge among the regulars that rainbow sigs are typically right out, backgrounds are usually rather unfortunate and line height is akin to god. This document outlines those things for the user but removes it from the enforcability part; leaving the policy for the hard rules and this the fluffy grey area where nitpickers can't tread.
In all honesty, I do not care whether it is here or the policy proper - just as long as this stuff is captured somewhere. I thought it would fly higher here away from the concerns of over enforcement; it was designed to be the helpful twin to a very open policy treading toward acceptance.

As to the second point, I thought it was common practice from GWW to encourage those signing with short names which aren't their real UID to create the account for the short name also. I may have been mistaken in this. Easy enough to remove - and not really something I want to encourage either. --Aspectacle 10:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem here is that in a system where sysops make the policies, you can't have a guide in advance. You simply can't tell what the policy is going to be yet, so any such guide will with all probability end up stating the wrong things, and thus being misleading. Backsword 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: registring shortened names is just a good idea; it prevents someone else from doing so. 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Sysops do not create policy alone, the wiki is for the community not the sysops. Sysops act for the community to protect the community. So the community should still be able to guide sysop behaviour through policy or guidelines which the sysops can reasonably interpret and apply discretion to stop wiki-lawyering and nit-picking. A system with rules but without any means for users to understand those rules and the rulings against them is every bit as bad as a system where every action of the sysops has to be planned out in advance.

The only problem with the guide (imo) is that it is written without a common understanding from the community on what level of policy documentation is required and how much grey area we leave for the sysops to apply their discretion to. --Aspectacle 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)