Forum:Signature colors

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Signature colors
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 July 2010 by Soldier 1033.

I've noticed that in recent days, it has become "fashionable" for non-sysops to highlight their signatures with either 22CC00 or 66AAFF (the sysop and bureaucrat highlights, respectively). I would prefer to get some community input on this issue.

Some reasons that this should be allowed involve RS:AEAE, since the use of special colors in signatures should not be restricted to a certain part of the user community. However, the specific meaning of AEAE is currently under debate. However, since the highlighted colors will only show up in signatures (and nowhere else, like Recent Changes or My Home), there isn't that much trouble.

Reasons for not allowing it are largely administrative. The whole point of having sysops and bureaucrats highlighted certain colors is so that regular users can have an easier time finding the users to go for help. Allowing anyone to have highlights defeats the purpose, especially since we have some non-conformist sysops who do not have highlighted names.

Now, before the discussion starts, I would like to say that I oppose restricting certain signature colors to sysops and bureaucrats, for the reasons stated in the second paragraph.

Discuss. --LiquidTalk 23:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - That's how it is now. So you are saying we should keep what we have now...so what is the point of this? HaloTalk 23:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer someone that can come up with better reasons than me to give good reasons for either position. I feel like the reasons I gave could be shot down really easily. --LiquidTalk 23:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get what your point is...per RS:AEAE we can do this. End of discussion. And it has nothing to do with being fashionable, I just wanted to copy you. HaloTalk 23:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem the way it is. Honestly, green is just green, and light blue is likewise light blue. If we are going to pull AEAE into it, then remove the highlights altogether. Ajraddatz Talk 23:13, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - its not like it hurts, just click and see Evil1888 23:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per Forum:Signature Policy, the reason for having admins and 'crats with highlighted names was to make it easy to find them. Since the discussion was closed and no action was taken to remove highlights, I assume consensus was that highlighted names would stay for the purpose of making it easy to find admins and 'crats. Other users having the same color names is detrimental to the main reason for keeping highlighted names, so I oppose other users having the same colors as admins and 'crats. Leftiness 23:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

=O This is a nifty edit conflict, eh? I was going to close this. --LiquidTalk 23:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
You can go ahead and close it, because what Leftiness said is in violation of RS:AEAE. HaloTalk 23:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll wait a bit longer, though, in case more people come. That being said, I'm removing my highlight now. I never liked it in the first place, and with consistency being a moot point, I don't see an issue. --LiquidTalk 23:26, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
More people overpowers policy? That sounds bad to me. HaloTalk 23:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
No, in case more people with good arguments come. Don't forget that consensus can override policy. --LiquidTalk 23:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
The day AEAE is overridden, I'm leaving. HaloTalk 23:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
it was overridden the day AEAE was written as there are sysops and crats, then there are regular user with limited power. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. In any system, you must have people who have certain powers, but not everyone can have these powers. It is just a fact of having stability. Their opinion still counts the same amount as any users, which is what matters. HaloTalk 23:40, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If adminstrator and bureaucrat colours are going to be restricted, are bot/Wikia Staff/Helper/VSTF colours going to be restricted too? --Iiii I I I 23:32, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Bot colours are good; although one might argue the implications of saying that robots are "more equal" than humans :S Ajraddatz Talk 23:37, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - AEAE was already overridden in Forum:Signature Policy, when it was determined that admins and crats should be unequal to other editors by having coloured names. I do believe I read some policy somewhere that saying "... Or else I'm leaving!!" is bad... Leftiness 23:39, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I have a coloured name and I'm not sysop/'crat...seems equal to me. HaloTalk 23:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not using "or else I'm leaving" as a threat to keep me around, but rather as an actually to state that I prefer freedom. HaloTalk 23:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Does AEAE apply to users or users, crats, sysops, etc? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:40, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

AEAE applies to everyone. HaloTalk 23:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a forum discussing AEAE. Forum:AEAE. (Sorry for the delay, I've been trying to clear my cache to get rid of my green color) --LiquidTalk 23:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - This discussion should be forwarded to Forum:AEAE, as the meaning of AEAE is obviously the topic of this discussion. Leftiness 23:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Again, the main reason for having specific name colours for admins and crats was to make them easy to identify. You having a name the same colour as an admin is detrimental to that, and it is therefore detrimental to RS:CONSENSUS, which overpowers RS:AEAE. Leftiness 23:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is detrimental, my name will only appear when I sign my signature, it will not appear on page history, and is therefore not a problem. If people are confused enough to lack the ability to discern that I am not a sysop, then I would probably be able to help them with any problems/questions they may have. HaloTalk 23:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Besides that, there are some regular users that know more than sysops. --LiquidTalk 23:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that coloured names is a poor way to figure out who's an admin or crat; I'm one of few who supported removing specific colours for admins and crats. However, my opinion on that matter is irrelevant; consensus was made that admins and crats would have coloured names for the purpose of making them easier to find. By having a name coloured the same way, you are making it less easy to find an admin. Regardless of how slightly you make it less easy, you are making it less easy. Leftiness 00:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Some admins don't have hilted names, aren't they making it slightly less easy? (To find all admins-you could choose to state this irrelevant if you want.) And I know how to do quite a bit around here, and if I don't, I find someone who can. So...I don't see how it really does make it less easy. HaloTalk 00:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - They are making it less easy; that's one of the reasons I don't think it should have been considered consensus. I also proposed to have a group of trusted/intelligent editors with a different colour than admins and crats which new editors could go to for help; that proposal was shot down on account of AEAE. There's a twisted sense of equality, pride, and personal preference in regards to this issue. Leftiness 00:10, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Per AEAE, users should be able to have whatever colour of signature they want. And I guess trusted users=rollback. I don't think they should have hilted names however...too much work lol. HaloTalk 00:13, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - On the contrary, it's a very easy thing to do. You open up a short CSS text file which I've lost the link to, and you add a six-digit colour code after the user's name. Leftiness 00:16, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css/hilite-and you just add them to a certain group. Only sysops can do it-which makes it somewhat a burden. HaloTalk 00:21, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless, having the same colour signature as an admin or crat makes it less easy to find an admin or crat, so it is against the main reason for consensus on the issue, so it is against consensus. Write up a proposal if you want to change consensus. Leftiness 00:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I can do it now, there's no policy against it. I don't want a policy with no use. HaloTalk 00:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I personally believe that's a bad-faith interpretation of consensus. I would support allowing users to have whatever colour signature they want, as it would give them more room to express themselves legally. (Legally references a different discussion.) Leftiness 00:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - The hilites were implemented for use in logs, changes, etc. Administrators are free (and many do) to override it in their signature. To be honest, the only reason they're hilited in signatures is an implementation artefact: we simply colour hyperlinks to certain user pages. If there was a way to do it only in recent changes and not in sigs, we would have done that to start with. I have no problem with anybody using whatever colour scheme they want (using common sense to a certain extent). Endasil (Talk) @  00:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

It did use to be only in RC/history/logs/diffs, but was changed to a much simpler code, saving 25kb in the process. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Finding sysops and crats is easy where it matters - The only place the green comes up for regular users is signatures on talk pages and such. In recent changes, and in article histories, the regular users name stays the normal blue. Those are the places where it is even semi-arguable that people need to distinguish regular users from those with extra tools. And once again I should point out, anyone needing an admin is directed to the page set up for them to find an admin. Especially as you never know if that admin in recent changes has just made their last edit for the next day or so.--Degenret01 00:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

As it is, sysops and crats are highlighted everywhere. I completely agree with you though, and would also like to point out this little page made entirely for listing all of the wiki's administrators, and when their last edit was. Ajraddatz Talk 00:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I can't help but notice that several of the people here supported removing specific colours for sysops' names. I know there are several people who supported specific colours for sysops, and I think this discussion could use their input. I also just noticed that I was referencing the wrong forum discussion... Forum:Ban Name Highlights is the correct reference. Leftiness 00:32, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If the names don't appear highlighted in the recent changes, then I don't see it as a problem.  Tien  00:33, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support restriction - Because we don't walk around in army uniforms on the street. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:49, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Doesn't that mean you oppose restriction of colours? Leftiness 01:20, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
No, it means that he supports the restriction. What Oli is saying is that ordinary citizens do not wear military uniforms; in the same manner, non-sysops should not use sysop colors. --LiquidTalk 01:31, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Do army veterans wear army uniforms on the street? No, unless they're at some type of memorial, or on special duty in the city. ⁓ Hello71 01:49, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I oppose restrictions. I'm just paraphrasing what Oli was saying. --LiquidTalk 01:51, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
@Oli - The "sysop colours" are only for recent pages so that we can identify sysops' edits. We don't need to restrict colours anywhere else. Let them have their own siggy colours. Amethyst II Talk 02:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)


Comment re:identifying sysops - Another point here is that trying to I.D. a sysop based on signature color in a talk page is not really logical. Several sysops have reverted to the standard blue, and many others have stylized signatures. Hell, on this page alone I think only one sysop can be identified by the green sig color, although at least four or five have posted.--Degenret01 03:23, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't necessarily have an issue with the siggy color, but I do have an issue with the sysop colors like on the recent changes and history. I have a hard time enough already, let alone confuse myself everytime I look on the history page going like wait...I thought they're admin, but it's blue. I really think there needs to be a standard here because it's really confusing...Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 13:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I understand it can be, and my goal was never to confuse people. But there is an important question that no one has given a solid answer to. "Why does it matter if you can identify a sysop on article history pages? As long as you recognize the name as a trustworthy editor, I can't see it mattering that anyone can tell who the sysops are.--Degenret01 13:34, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
One thing you might want to try is copying the highlight CSS to your personal CSS, and re-adding all of the sysop names. RS:ADMIN has a list you can check, I believe. That's what I did. By the way, I count four sysops who have posted here, based on name colour. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 16:52, May 22, 2010 (UTC) 
Stelercus has created a css page for nonconformists that you can include. It's User:Stelercus/nonconformist.css. He has kindly omitted me from that page, ostensibly because I told him I hate a green name. --LiquidTalk 00:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I stopped updating it because it never worked to start with. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
(Off-topic)Well, I prefer to use my own, given that I change what type of green sysops get, so all sysops need to be included. Sysops are coloured like this on my skin. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 17:52, May 24, 2010 (UTC) 
What I think would be awesomely epic is links to sysops' and b'crats' userpages are given classes so users can set colours for all sysops/'crats in one/two easy declaration(s). Or, even better, the ability to set hilite colors via Special:Preferences for sysops, 'crats, and "nonconformists" of each plus a personal one for yourself (only you can see your own, of course) (so that's 5 options). That's probably needs to be an extension to work, but it would be awesomeness in a can on a special page. </ramblings> Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
(Off-topic)I've been working on a script to do something similar for a while, based on retrieving the usergroup and colouring based on that. In fact, I have a few custom highlights of my own, one being TLULbot. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 18:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC) 

Request for closure - Not active anymore. HaloTalk 08:18, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Green/light blue signature colors don't harm anyone. Andrew talk 19:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)