" 

 == Huge tag == 

 I really prefer the nice little padlock symbol, instead of the huge tag, at the top of the article.  The huge tag will cause many readers to not read the article.  Any chance we can go back to the little padlock?   
 :Why would the tag cause anyone not to read the article? I don't understand.    
 ::Because it's big and ugly and says the page has been VANDALIZED.   
 :::See the links provided in the thread above this one.   
 (undent) I am not disputing the need for locking up the article.  I'm simply saying that the huge tag is hideous.  The small padlock symbol would work just as well.  We have been through this before.   
 :I think the tag gets in the way of the article.  If someone tries to edit the article they will find out it is locked.  There's no need to make the page look ugly for the rest of the folks.    
 ::Just a note, Ferrylodge: The diff you are pointing to has utterly no bearing on this. That was from the last shit-storm around the time Palin's VP-candidacy was announced. Why are you bringing it up now?   
 :::No, it is the exact same situation.  NYB was saying to keep the article locked up, but use the small padlock symbol instead of using the huge tag.  It's exactly what I'm requesting now.   
 ::::And if you look at the talk page discussion at the time, many editors disagreed with NYB who has no special standing with respect to such decisions.     

 :If we are going to lock this article down till after the election then I prefer the large, obnoxious box.  It is a more honest way of announcing to readers and editors that something unusual is happening here.   I'm not sure I agree that protection is needed though.     
 ::I think it's pretty much irrelevant for readers, and would just tend to drive them away.  It basically says that the article's been vandalized, so why would anyone stay and read it? For editors, the explanation at the top of the talk page seems like plenty.   
 :::I'd rather they recieve the warning and choose not to read the article then recieve no warning.     
 : For what it's worth, I also believe the smaller tag is sufficient and does not convey unnecessary or unintended consequences. From a WP-level perspective, the big tag brings negative PR to the Wikipedia model of community editing to perhaps millions who will view these four pages over the next several days. More importantly, it diminishes the accomplishments of the many active editors who have worked on these articles for months through donated effort, essentially slapping a public and glaring ""Red F"" on their collective results.    

 ::Worrying about having good ""Wiki-PR"" and preventing 24-7 editors from having hurt feelings on the articles they WP:OWN would not form the basis of a legitimate decision. Of course, this probably means it will happen.   

 :: Come now, Factchecker. Certainly there's a need to take pride in your community, isn't there?    

 :::Do you hate freedom? ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|