UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy Revamp

This is basically my view of what signatures should be. Basically they are there for identification. Personalisation is a good thing to encourage, but shouldn't impact on the primary purpose of the sig (identification) or the wiki itself -- boxy 02:50, 11 October 2015 (BST)

General Comments & Overall Structure

Is it OK if I make a couple of punctuation fixes? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, although I expect to add/change it over the next few days -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)

I agree with this in principle, but the text as it stands feels incredibly patronizing. Things like "due to overly 'creative' personalisation". Is anyone else getting this feeling? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need signatures

Shouldn't the signature be required to link to the user's page (or character page) "and/or" their talk page? (or maybe "and"?) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, "and/or" -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)

Disruptive signatures

Better, but I still say limit the visible length to the 255 character limit of the Nickname field in Preferences. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I really think we should worry about defining hard limits in separate amendments later (for ones that arn't already in place) -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)

As Boxy. The closer we get to general "don't be a dick" rules, the better. This isn't a massive community any more, we don't need very precise or particular rules, just lots of mod discretion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Erm

There's a reason no policies are written like this. This is basically just the current signature policy except instead of 'do this and don't do this' it's 'please maybe do this and you shouldn't do this'. Policies should only be here to specify in no uncertain terms what to do and what no to do, not suggest it. It just leaves more loopholes than it fixes. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Policies should set out the basic framework of what the intent is. Sigs are here for a specific purpose, and that is clear identification of who posted what, when. Not one person, who has ever designed a signature with this basic principle as the main goal, has ever been brought to A/VB. It's time that policy reminded posters of what the underlying purpose of the wiki is, rather than setting up specific rules as a challenge for them to game the system. The current sig policy is the worst example of this, with it's "everything else is allowed" and "you have one week to comply" after being told your sig is fucking ridiculous. It simply invites wikilawyers and the too cool for school crowd in for a troll fest. What is written here is, more or less, what the current sig policy is, because sysops have been forced to ignore the letter of the current policy, because it is totally unworkable -- boxy 13:53, 11 October 2015 (BST)