GuildWiki talk:Sign your comments/archive 1

Draft
I have transcribed a draft from Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Because some of the recommendations on wikipedia differ from the communities ideas. So in order to better facilitate the discussion, and to prevent confusion, I have transcribed over a majority of the article. --Draygo Korvan 14:09, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The article name sounds like it's only asking me to sign User talk:PanSola... - 14:50, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well ... I copied the article, including the name (ED: which I messed up in so doing 16:28, 12 June 2006 (CDT)) from wikipedia - and cut out the section that is a bit controversial (even on wikipedia). On wikipedia it is considered a guideline, not a rule. And I dont think we will be using it to ban users here either. --Draygo Korvan 14:56, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Move

 * 1) Please sign your comments on talk pages
 * 2) Please sign your comments
 * 3) Sign your comments on talk pages
 * 4) Sign your comments
 * 5) Please sign your talk pages (as-is)

I would go for #2, I prefer shorter article names. The user can read into the start of the article to get the whole idea. --Draygo Korvan 15:52, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, short and to the point. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Two looks good to me too. (Yay, I used all three versions of the word in that sentance.)  --Rainith 16:06, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

I think 1 is the clearest because it is not immediately obvious that comments are limited to talk pages. However, I have no strong opinions here except to be against #5, which is just wrong. –70.20&#x260e; 16:14, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You need to jump over to wikipedia and tell them they are wrong =P. There are exceptions to the comments limited to talk pages rule. Discussion pages (for instance) can be signed. --Draygo Korvan 16:18, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * WP uses Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, which I think is fine. I have no idea whythe old here linked to that oddly named article –70.20&#x260e; 16:25, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yea your right, messed up =P. --Draygo Korvan 16:27, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Seems like Karlos moved the page on us siting that we shouldnt use Please because Please is assumed...--Draygo Korvan 10:16, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah the "Please" was bugging me quite a bit too. Glad he removed it. - 10:17, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorta bugs me that he did it under the radar, and didnt even bother updating the unsigned template. --Draygo Korvan 10:18, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos was unaware there was even a discussion about it. :) I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. Qhen I looked at the page nothing told me there was any discussion about the name. I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that. Anyways, the please is not right. If you guys wanna move it to "Sign your talk pages postS" or "Don't forget to sign messages you leave in talk pages of articles" then by all means. But all the other policies have short, concise titles, not verbose descriptive ones. We call it "You are Valuable" and not "Your contributions are really valuable to us." don't say in 5 words what you can say in 3. :) --Karlos 10:59, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * We did use the move tag, check the history of the article, it was removed when I moved the page. --Draygo Korvan 11:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

Additional rule discussion
I'm going to put up for discussion various issues that we should address in the guideline. Ill start with the ones that will be more agreeable, and move down to the ones that have the potential to have more debate. The first two will concern external links and byte (character) limit for sigs. --Draygo Korvan 11:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The use of transclusions in sigs has been brought up in the past, and is used by some users currently. Should we also add a vote on if transclusions should be allowed in signature pages? --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:29, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * At the moment, I wouldnt. I would prefer to get somethings out of the way that are less controversial. --Draygo Korvan 15:34, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

Proposed Rule:
Permit or disallow external links in user signatures.

Votes

 * Permit
 * Sign here to allow external links in user signatures
 * Disallow
 * Draygo Korvan Signatures should not be allowed to have any external links in them.
 * &mdash; Skuld

Proposed Rule:
Signatures are limited to X number of characters not including the timestamp, or the actual link to the user's page ( User name  doesn't count towards the limit, but if the piped link is modified to be longer, the extended lengh would count).

Votes

 * For
 * 50 character limit
 * Sign here to support
 * 100 character limit
 * Draygo Korvan
 * 150 character limit
 * Sign here to support
 * 200 character limit
 * Sign here to support
 * e^(pi), rounded up character limit
 * - 15:16, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * (fill in) character limit
 * Sign here to support
 * Against
 * Sign here to oppose

Discussion
e^(pi) ~= 23.1406926. That seems a bit low Pansola. Heck my current sig would then be in violation =p. --Draygo Korvan 15:37, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Is this vote regarding displayed characters, or characters of code? Mine is already 214 characters if you're counting characters in the code, but only 27 actually displayed characters.  If I had a graphic in mine (many users do have one), it would be even longer in characters of code. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:45, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm against cluttering of the edit buffer. - 15:49, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It would be code. As in when i click edit it shouldnt be more than X characters long. Though you can shrink yours quite a bit by attacking those &amp;nbsp; in addition it doesnt count the actual datestamp. Yours is actually only 142 characters long--Draygo Korvan 15:51, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oops, my mistake, mine is only 142 in code. I was counting all characters in my sig file, forgetting that some of it was inside a noinclude tag. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:53, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * if you cut out your &amp;nbsp; your sig looks like this, shortening it even more:

--- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) -
 * --Draygo Korvan 15:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

I just modified what counts and what doesn't. For example, Draygo Korvan's sig would count as 0 characters, and Barek's after removing the nbsp's would be under 100 characters. - 15:56, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ill second that change, and move my vote to 100 chars, which I think is reasonable.--Draygo Korvan 16:01, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I think that change is making it even more hoops to jump through. And twisting the rules to squeeze specific existing signatures in seems downright silly. I much prefer a nice, basic guideline of "Please do not make you signature terribly long and/or complicated." -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 16:09, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't understand. The change gaurentees everyone, regardless of the length of their user name, to start from the same place (basically, the vanilla sig count as 0).  How is that silly or twisting things? - 16:19, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That part isn't twisting anything. It is merely needlessly complicated, and it encourages those who want long, silly signatures to choose long, silly usernames, which would be of no use to anyone. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 16:25, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm, I had a reason at one time for inserting the &nbsp, but it seems to work fine without them, so I've cleaned it up. Gets it down to 114.  I'll still need to modify further to get it under 100, but should be do-able.  Still, I don't think 150 or even 200 is outrageously long myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

Mine's nice and short :p &mdash; Skuld  15:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)