This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peacock template. |
|
Is it just me, or does the icon look like a clamshell? --Lethargy 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Echoing Dylan Lake's concerns above, an editor at WP:PEACOCK has suggested that this tag is better suited for use on talk pages rather than articles because it may confuse ordinary users. If that's the consensus, the (({1|article or section))} parameter should be removed. --Muchness 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have thrown together Image:No-peacock.svg. Anyone not want me to replace the current vector image.
Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Needs a talk page link, it's not always clear what the words that constitute "peacock words" refer to. Soon to be fixed. Besides: beautiful image!! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The icon seems to be a little too cluttered or claustrophobic - especially with its relatively small size in the template. The peacock buster symbol seems to cause most of the problem - suggest removing? Opinions? Wisdom89 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please add interwiki link [[ja:Template:大言壮語]] or create documentation subpage. --219.164.57.180 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an inline version of this template, similar to the //weasel// (curly brackets substituted) and ((weasel-inline)) tags? CapnZapp (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the new icon (file:Viewpoint disconnect.png) is an improvement over the old. It's darker, non-standard, and isn't sized to 40px width (which means that the template is stretched vertically). This should be reverted. There is no absolute need for every individual warning template to use its own image. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear who changed this template and why. Was there any discussion? I prefer the old version. Anyone agree? . . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the opening sentence of this tag "contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Contains wording that (1) Promotes the subject of improving the article in a subjective manner (2) without imparting real information (where the article is wrong, or how it can be improved). As such, this tag should be tagged with itself, which should be tagged with this tag...... (ad infinitum).
Can we at least agree that this tag can only be ever used under the condition that constructive, concrete and actionable information for improvement is provided on the talk page of the tagged page. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I find the bolded part, "promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information", pretty opaque. Even knowing exactly what WP:Peacock terms are, I still had to stare at it for a bit, to see the connection.
How about this, instead: