Template talk:Feature

I really, really don't like the in-your-face approach of this template. Can it be more subtle? Please? — Why 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * we have been talking about this for a wile and the hole point of it was so people would get involved in the project. - [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, evidently people are having problems with it, and tbh I agree with them. — Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * well if they could explain why here that would be fantastic, the point of the tag is to get people involved in the project, and to get people thinking if the page needs a change before it gets featured. - [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As Zesbeer said, it's supposed to be as "in your face" as things like the clean up tag. I disagree with the deletion as it is meant to bring people to the featured article project. As it is no one will see it and thus the tag is redundant. It should be put to how it was - the, as Why puts it, "in-your-face" version. Edit: Though it could be made smaller (remove the icon and shrink the height?). But it should remain "in your face" like other important tags. -- Konig / talk 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would vote for it being the size/etc. that it currently is, but maybe below the main article header. (i.e. a mix of the position of the delete template, with the size of this template) [[File:User DimeCadmium sig.jpg]] Dime Cadmium ! 01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a normal size font though. It has to actually be noticeable. As it is now, both position and size (or either or), make the tag completely pointless. -- Konig / talk 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed with konig- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * i dont have a problem with a normal font size. my main gripe is that its not vital to the operation of the wiki like (or, not as vital as) the delete template, so i dont think it should be large. [[File:User DimeCadmium sig.jpg]] Dime Cadmium ! 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It never was large. It was smaller than the tag even. --  Konig / talk 03:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the template code in the edit window, but missed the actual tag on the page the first few times. It needs to either be large enough to be noticed, or removed completely.--[[Image:User Pyron Sy sig.png|19px| ]] Pyron Sy 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "larger than normal font size." [[File:User DimeCadmium sig.jpg]] Dime Cadmium ! 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmm the whole purpose of this is to be "in your face" to get more people involved in the Featured article project. It is also NOT large, nor is it overbearing. This tag is only on the page for a short period of time (from nomination to accepted/rejected), and then it is removed. I also disagree with the deletion. If you wish to discuss the usage of it, please join the discussion that has been going on for awhile on the project talk page. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  07:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the template to the originally agreed upon template. Any further discussion should happen on the project talk page before changes are implemented. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is prinicply important. Of course you need it to be visual, but that's just the problem. You are putting your needs above those of the wiki. And you may say it's just on a few pags, but imagine if everyone did as you. And there is no reason why you would be special, so if you can do it, so can everyone else. And that has never been accepteble. In the past, this stuff has always been delted and or moved to user space. Why don't place it on your userpage as many others have done for the things they wanted to promote? Backsword 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But Backsword, the feature article project is a "need of the wiki" - it's a feature of the wiki, it is done for the wiki. It is part of the wiki. Thus we are not putting "our needs" over that of the wikis as it is not stuff for our user space, it is for the main page of the wiki. -- Konig / talk 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but so is most everyhing. You can check the project page and see how many are listed just there. And those are don't cover anything done in a different stlye. It's the primacy of what you find intersting that is the special need. And frankly, helping the wiki is a thin excuse. the fetured page is a small and unimportant part of one page, thus not to sclae with the interest. Not that that matters; it would still not be OK if it was for an important project or activity. Backsword 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other projects have their own additions to pages, but the purpose of this template is to get people to help with the project - in order to do that it cannot be subtle. It is to increase the interest in the project because, as it seems to me, it has one of the - if not the - smallest amount of people working on it because no one works on it. You're the only person who wants the deletion; even people who do not take an active part of the feature article project think it should stay. The purpose of the tag is to get more people on the project which will then mean that there is little need for the tag (and then it can go to what it was changed to). This isn't an "ad" and it isn't a user-space purpose. -- Konig / talk 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why both claim and deny it's an ad? Especially when it clearly is. And yes, other projects have them too, but they are meant for peoples user pages. That's perfectly fine, and what I recomened you do too. And yes, ads needs to be disrutive to get attention. if it weren't it would not be a problem, but it would be of no use for you either. Now imagine if most pages had one or more ads on them. As for other people, if they have new positions to state, they should o it themsleves, here. Backsword 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he claimed anyone had a new position to state, but rather that people (like myself) had previously stated their positions. Regardless, while it may be an ad, that doesn't mean it should be confined to a userspace. (Also, this project is of more notice to the users - as it determines what goes to the Main page - so IMO it does have more of a right to place "ad's" than most other projects) edit: @Wyn, there are ways to get people's attention besides larger font. [[File:User DimeCadmium sig.jpg]] Dime Cadmium ! 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * who's to decide that a small change to a corner of main space is so much more important that, sya, all quest or all mission articles combined that that project should have priviliges? Backsword 01:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When people call things ads on sites the first (and usually only) thing that comes to mind is something that is directing you away from the wiki - this isn't such a thing. So the reason for the deletion is unclear. That is what I meant. If pages have one or more tag (this is a more proper term than "ad," btw) on them, the tags should be dealt with - tags are meant to call attention and state "this page needs community attention" - the reason why other projects don't have tags is because most (if not all) projects that require attention are long-term while this is short-term. For instance, the Research Needed project is a long term (and widespread) thing and thus if it were to disrupt the page it would do so constantly. This is not such. As for the other people - no one said they have new positions, I was stating their old position which were all in favor of the tag. You're the only one who has an issue with the tag - even here there is no issue with the tag. -- Konig / talk 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * an ad distracts people away fro mthe content they've come for towards somthing the adviser wants to promote. Exactly what you've said this is. And not a tag like otheruses and cleanup which provids both readers and editors info on the article. Research needed is somthing that is supposed to be done and delat with. Are you saying that's the case for your project? Can you give me an end date? And would you be ok with other groups placing ads all over mainspace? As for other people, if they have't even stated it, it's even less up to you to declare they have different views from what they've stated. Backsword 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said Research needed isn't something that is supposed to be done and dealt with, I'm saying that those tags remain there for a long period of time. The feature article project, however, does not leave things in place for a long period of time (with the occasional exception where those few of us who work on the project are all busy - which has only happened a couple times). How I see it, other groups already do place, as you call them, "ads" - some are subliminal and easier to ignore than others. And yes, I would be fine with it so long as those which are meant to be "in your face" as Why up at the top so bluntly said are part of fast-moving projects like the featured article project. And Backsword, when did I ever state that other people have different views from what they've stated? I said all those people whom I listed are in favor of the tag remaining (thus oppose deletion), that is what they said. I am not saying they have a different view than what they do. -- Konig / talk 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is NOT an ad Backsword. Stop acting like an idiot. Who made you god of this wiki? There is an entire group of this community who have discussed this and agreed. The fact that you didn't take part in that discussion is YOUR PROBLEM. The featured article is a primary point of the main page, and should receive as much community attention as possible. This template is not large, it is not intrusive and it IS temporary. Tell me exactly what harm this does? It brings public attention to something ON THIS WIKI that deserves public attention. You make edits all the time that affect huge portions of this wiki [] with very little regard for anything anyone else might have to say get over yourself. And yes, I would be fine with other projects tagging pages that needed attention from the community for the completion of their project, especially if this project got front and center placement on the main page. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh This is not an ad; it is more akin to the cleanup template, as it is meant to draw attention to an article that might need more polish and/or is potentially interesting enough for the mainpage. And it really isn't a user project, as it is for the mainpage. And the mainpage is pretty important, so it gets some exceptions, capiche? --JonTheMon 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WOW look at all this wiki drama, any way Backsword stop trolling, the community has come up with this, if you failed to partake in the discussion like wyn said its your own fail. if anything this is a glorified clean up tag. its saying hey this might be featured make changes clean up the article and partake in the discussion, the current circle jerk that the project is has gotten very boring, bring the more of community into the fold is greatly needed.
 * i dont know if you know this but every two-three weeks we need a new feature article right now we have 8 articles waiting to be featured i am going away for the summer in a few days and wont be active during that time. we only have 2 more articles awaiting approval one of which i think is going to fail. so right now this tag is only on 2 pages. it only takes about 2weeks for a article to go to either accepted or rejected. so at the longest this tag will be up there for 3 weeks OMG THE WIKI AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO END GUYS ZOMG FIRE THE LAZERS.
 * it looks like to me community consensus (mind you from people who dont actively even work on the project) is to remove the deletion tag.
 * also i would like to add the dye char project has a simulator tag that they put on dye charts that are not in match.- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 06:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)