UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Text Policy Revision

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This policy would adjust the UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy to expand the ban on images over 14 pixels high, to include any signature which obscures other text on the page.

The revision would insert text to read as follows:

What wouldn't be allowed

  • Signatures which have images higher than 14 pixels high.
  • Signatures which overlap, obscure or render illegible other text or images on a page.
  • Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.
  • Signatures which impersonate another user.
  • Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP.
  • Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions (closing the browser for example).
  • Signatures which contain images larger than 50kb.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. Author vote. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. It should be common sense, but it won't hurt to codify it. -- Spiderzed 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. As has been said, it should already be obvious, but because there were some questions about it, I definitely don't object to having it made explicitly clear. Aichon 21:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. It is already common sense, the only thing that's changed in the last 4 years is the sysop team's unwillingness to punish established members of the community when they play up. But whatever, might as well get rid of this annoying signature. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Against

  1. I've had it up to here with your rules. Nothing to be done! 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's already covered by the 3rd bullet point (ie. generally breaking the wiki through formatting) -- boxy 00:56, 9 October 2015 (BST)
  3. 1. Already covered by the rules. 2. less red tape makes a low-traffic wiki happier --hagnat 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Cǫme ơņ. Ìs this reąlly nęcęssary? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Nobody considered my suggestion of limiting a templated signature's length to the maximum character capacity of the Nickname field. --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    PS, to save you from figuring out what the limit is, it's 255 characters. --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    That’ll never fly. I've suggested that in the past, too, and it always gets shot down because these fancy sigs use tons of chars in formatting. (For example, your current sig, fairly restrained as these things go, clocks in at 722 characters.) ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Not counting the coding, why not have the final length (that everyone regularly sees) clock out at the Nickname field's length? That was what I was trying to get at when this was in discussion. --GAMBLER of LEGEND ΧIII 01:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements