Forum:Proposal for new Signature Policy

I've noticed quite a few signatures that are downright becoming annoying. I may seem like the big bad wolf, marching in giving orders, but it is to become a better wiki, and maybe the Wookiee guys won't look down on this wiki as much.

I propose several items for this legislation:
 * 1) The elimination of all signatures with flashing words or letters. These GIFs interfere with the ability to read a forum, and take up a large amount of space.
 * 2) Regulations on number and size of images in signatures.
 * 3) The use of timestamps for all registered members, which can be done by typing four tildes (~).

--  Riffsyphon  1024 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Riffsyphon. Him and I have been discussing ways to improve the Star Wars Fanon Wiki for several days now, and this came up as one of our things we should deal with. I realized that this would surely make our wiki much more neat, tidy and less obnoxious to the eyes. I support this new proposal, and henceforth I will sign with ~ instead of what I've been doing lately, which has been using my SV undefined template, which wouldn't allow a timestamp. Anyways, I support this, and I hope the rest of you do too. By the way, this isn't a voting session, its going to be discussed and agree upon through consensus.  Victor  ( talk ) 07:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add a length requirement for sigs as well. I've seen some around here that take up almost an entire line because the sig is signed something like this:


 * DarthExampleHelp me plot to take over the galaxy!Past exploits and plans for future plots

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but there are sigs similar to that one out there. I don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but those types of sigs look totally unprofessional as well as being long and distracting to the reader. If you guys want to be taken seriously, you can't have sigs like the one above or those (IMO) totally obnoxious animated gif sigs. Boil it down to basics: Your username or alias (you guys decide on whether or not you require people to use their real usernames in their sigs like they do at Wookieepedia), and a link to your talk and/or contrib page (again, decide amongst yourselves whether you want to have one, the other, or both). Anyway, that's my two cents on the matter.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 11:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I do like the GIF's but they are anoying when you want to read something. Plus the, Take over the Galaxy with me! thing that leads to a talk page can just be, Drop a message. Also on the GOW wiki we now have a policy saying Images in a sig can only be 25px, so all it does is takes up one line instead of making every thing be skewed off. So I like how we propose it, but with the ~, I have no problem with it, but it does clog up the editing screen and extends the page. But I shouldn't complian seeming I do it, but I just wanted to throw that out. Well thanks for starting this Riffspyhon. It should help. Darth tader Mandalore battles 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the second proposed rule, but not the first or last. As you can see from my signature, the flashing writing can easily be shrunken to say, 100px, which doesn't cause too much interferance. As for the third rule, whenever I edit my timestamp signature here on SWF, it affects my signature on Wookieepedia, which I don't want. That is why I have resorted to using a template. As for Wookieepedians looking down on us, I really couldn't care less.


 * I agree with the Darth Abeonis dude. Kudeb [[Image:Privatepatch.png|15px]] Private of SWF 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here here! As for flashies, if Community consensus (or voting, it seems we vote for everything around here...) decides to remove 'em, they then can go, but we can easily shrink them down so they are less obnoxious. -- [[Image:JM76Sig.gif]] Talk to an Admin Mind Trick Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg]]

It's not just about Wookieepedians looking down on you guys, it's about the image of the site in general. I showed this site to my brother, who does not contribute to any wikis at all and has never ever even heard of this site before today, and even he commented that this place looked like it was run by "mentally retarded 12 year olds". I don't know if that's the rep you guys want, but that's how this site appears to the uninitiated, and the sigs contribute to this image (yes, he did comment on those, too). Like I said, if you guys want to be taken seriously, ditch the long/flashing/large sigs (or at least regulate them).  StarNeptune Talk to me! 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what do you think people are going to think about a site called Star Wars Fanon? That its run by middle aged men and is set up like Expedia.com or something? When most people would be directed here, they would think its a bunch of adolescence who are little nerds or something and can't have a MySpace, regardless of how it looks. Really, I showed it to my brothers too, and while one was initially 'into it', he eventually got bored and considered it a waste of time. While this new policy may help our site run better as a community, I really doubt it will help improve our 'rep'. -- [[Image:JM76Sig.gif|90px]] Council Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]]
 * I like the idea. I used to have an image in my sig, but it looked bad on a non-white background(what I have now). As for the time stamp, that itself can be annoying at times, though it is useful. If people still want to use their template sigs, they can add five tildes at the end to add just a timestamp.  21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Riff. I personally like to use simple signatures, and I very much dislike overly-large GIFs and signature templates - they take up space, clutter up template namespace and of all - they're useless! So, keep it plain. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only isn't how our website is seen in general by all publics, but it's how I want to see it to. I care how our wiki looks and I care how organized we our amongst ourselves. I like to come online and see a nice, and organized wiki. Not a messy one, full of garbage articles, garbage spam, garbage signatures, etc. Which is why I support this, and to add onto what Riff originally said at the top: flashy signatures are not only distracting, annoying, and take up space, but they are constantly on one page alone (such as talk pages or voting pages) and they create a massive blinking system of signatures. Now, I have absolutely no problem with images in signatures (for the name of the user only) as long as it's not a gif that blinks.


 * Secondly, as StarNeptune pointed out, I believe the content in a sig should definitely be shortened down. I myself have only a link to the userpage of my own and my talk page, titled "Victor" and "talk", respectively. I do not mind things like "Holonet" for talk page links, but things like "Come talk to the Dark lord!!!" or links to external wikis seem a bit too much. I would say that links to userpage and talk page should be required, and links to contributions page should be allowed (but not required) but anything other than that (such as links to subpages or external wikis or an article) would be unnecessary and shouldn't be allowed. Plus, of course, make it mandatory to sign with four tildes ( ~ ) all the time for a timestamp.  Victor  ( talk ) 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should require a talk page link, as many users don't know how to do custom sigs, and so they simply have a link to their user page. Also, I don't see a problem with one external wiki link or something of the sort, but it should probably be limited to one. For instance, my sig has one, and I don't think it is that bothersome.  Pinky Talk Motorcycle Wiki 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right on the issue about requiring a talk page link, however it is also very possible to teach users how to do it. It's not that difficult to do, and after all, we should help one another. -- Victor  ( talk ) 05:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No more flashing signatures.


 * Well thats one step closer to becoming more a mature wiki I guess some users would say. Also my brother, Star Wars Freak is younger and doesn't care about it. But most of them say it's ran okay, but is very unorganized. Darth tader Mandalore battles 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my sig, but I just want to make it clear; I really don't give a cent about what others think about this website, I only want to better the community so we have an easier time running this site. What really annoys me is that we are so worked up on SIGNATURES! We still have hundreds of uncategorized articles, images with no categorization, stubs that I could read in five seconds, and at least four dozen articles in the Cleanup category, and we're worried about signatures?! -- [[Image:JM76sig.jpg|90px]] Council Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well a sig reform will be easy to do, for our ongoing community editing war, thats a lot harder. So start small, get bigger. Darth tader Mandalore battles 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, what tader said. -- Victor  ( talk ) 05:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

mentally retarded 12 year olds - StarNeptune

If you want to gain a good reputation you should stop creating your own crap fanon, and start documenting acknowledged fanon, like SuperShadow's or stuff found on Red6.tk. At least that fanon is known widely, and you would have sources to document it. Otherwise you will become another uncyclopedia, only with a narrow subject to explore, which isn't really needed around here. For fan fiction you can go to www.fanfiction.net and write your own stories and even get rated. Just face it: Star Wars Canon is kept together by the creator of the official universe (Lucas, which created the films) and Leland Chee, one of his employees who keeps the Expanded Universe together. Star Wars Fanon is "kept together" by its creator (SuperShadow) and you should keep "Notable Expanded Fanon" together here. You could begin with "List of Jedi Knights by midichlorian potential" :) TeamGizka 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And you must choose bewteen "content" and "community". If you favor community over content, your articles will continue to suck even more than now.

If you favor content over the community, there is a chance that immature editors (like DarthRaul and others who create clans) will go away, leaving some space for more mature people who want to do something a bit more constructive. :) TeamGizka 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to retract that statement if I may, yes it was a bit immature but not all of the users who made them were imature. I am not going to mention any names to stop an argument from happening.. Darth tader Mandalore battles 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just want to say, SuperShadow??? You want us to include that garbage? Yeah, that'll really make us more popular with other users, if we add someone with that reputation. Besides, he wouldn't allow us, because he considers it all "canon." Pinky49 Talk 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could easily create an article named List of Jedi Knights by midichlorian potential, but I wont; purely because it was Mickey Suttle in the first place who wrote the list. SWF wan'ts nothing to do with Supershadow, and by documenting him, we affiliate ourself with him. I could easily say that the stuff on fanfiction.com is crap, and our's brilliant. It's a matter of opinion. So no, we wont be taking up your ideas. 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To TeamGizka- So apparently, you can come around and say, all your fanon is crap, now you must do as I say, otherwise it will continue to be crap. Its not like Supershadow's stuff is noble prize material anyway. And Supershadow didn't 'invent' fanon, nor was he the first, just the most widely known. -- [[Image:JM76sig.jpg|90px]] Council Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]]


 * I second Jasca and JM.[[Image:CurrentBigThingSig.jpg|150px]] 18:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By crap fanon i mean Iznican and articles like that, with content which borders  nonsense like Darth Urfowlar, generated by clueless users that are usually below the age required to think clearly. You have 12,000 articles. How many of them can be considered more "valuable" than SuperShadow's made up stuff? Why do you consider SuperShadow's fanon not worthy of being included here? Would you also consider other non canonical projects (Team Gizka's restoration mod), which weren't made by this community, not worthy of inclusion here? TeamGizka 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SuperShadow has proven that, for the most part, he can't be taken seriously. However, if he can structure his fanon correctly, and neatly, he is welcome to write here.[[Image:CurrentBigThingSig.jpg|150px]] 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because we all write on the same website doesn't mean we support each other's fanon, TeamGizka. However, we are all entitled to equal representation, as long as articles follow guidelines. -- Victor  ( talk ) 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SuperShadow fanon can be accepted, and it was openly welcome according to the Main Page very early in this site's history (I believe it was TempMan's message there). We should NOT disallow fanon from other sites, but give credit to whomever made the story if the author of the article did not (as was also on the Main Page). The reason we think SuperShadow is silly is because he claims all of his stuff is canon on the highest level possible, and that everything he tells us is true, not only in G-canon, but in real life (I am referring to Star Wars Episode 7). Anything made by SuperShadow that fits current policy is welcome on Star Wars Fanon. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer 6,000,000 forms of communication 23:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as CPO said all types of Fanon is allowed and can be submitted by anyone. Lets not have another argument, anyone has their right to an opinion, but to make people do what they want, is wrong. People who are normally not users here say it's stupid, users here think it's fine and is home to good people. I personally like it here, I spend my time here often, my brother is younger and is not a member here, and says it's stupid. Basically I think if you don't like it here please don't say it's stupid and do this my way then I'll like it. If you don't like it tell an admin ways you think will make it better here, instead of saying do this and that, then i'm fine. Thats my way of putting things. Darth tader Mandalore battles 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Let's go back to the discussion, not SS. I agree with the proposal, as when I started to read this page I read it without problem until I came to the part were Jasca wrote I couldn't concentrate. I have noticed this problem with sigs before and are happy that we finally do something about it. About, maybe some weeks ago, I had on of those "DarthExampleHelp me plot to take over the galaxy!Past exploits and plans for future plots" sigs, but I changed it later to my new one with short names to links and a smaller image. -- N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius  08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you have to bring SS into this? Gah! But this site will have many different levels of what people consider to be good fanon. In all truthfulness, George Lucas would probably look at it and laugh, and then again he might not. Sure we'll have to clean this place up, it's the least we can do. It's all really complicated when it comes to deciding what fanon is good and what is bad. Frankly I think an article like Iznican is ridiculous (though there are worse), but some things like AtaruMaster's massive fan-fiction or Victor's complex characters are to be cherished. That's not to say the creators of the less-than-stellar authors can't improve in their skills and produce great material. --  Riffsyphon  1024 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some people are changing there sig just because this page is here. just noteing something and I shall keep my name out of this so nobody starts verbally attacking me, which seems to happen alot on this page by the way.
 * Your point being? -- [[Image:JM76sig.jpg|90px]] Council Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually changed my sig before this discussion came.  N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|25px]] 20:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I just joined the decussion but this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard! Riff you may have a problem with flashy sigs but its not up to you, to me most of the community likes flashy sigs. Pluse they dont hert anyone and really I say we put it to a vote, its up to the community not admins (In my opinion) or this would be a dictatership.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, it wouldn't be a dictatorship, because there is more than one admin.


 * True but it would be very unfair and SW fanon would go down in popularity if we dont let the community have a say in things like this.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Troyb, it is really hard to concentrate on the text with this flashy sigs, atleast for me.  N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|25px]] 20:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)