Template talk:FACfailed

message: I changed the "is" to "was" on this template message so that it won't have to be removed from talk pages in case nominations fail. • Benc • 06:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: The new design has been implemented here.  I would like to suggest one small tweak: bolding/italicising the word "former" so that it stands out a little bit more.  violet/riga (t) 08:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New design

message: Some articles have problem with the default "view its sub-page" link in this template because the articles were renamed from the name used for the nomination.  In thise case, use the original article name as an optional parameter.  Example:  Shawnc 05:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional parameter 

message: It's been bothering me that we use the same image for Former FAs (i.e. articles that were once Featured, but then removed) as we use for Failed FACs: :Image:Cscr-former.png. It makes it difficult to tell at first glance whether the article was once an FA, but then lost that status (which is typically a very important issue for the article in question), or whether it was simply a failed FAC (which is typically a trivial, non-vital feature of the article in question). I feel that we should replace the image in one of the two templates with a new image that better distinguishes between the two and conveys meaning more clearly: how about a dotted-line outline of a Featured Star? We could replace the broken-star of the  template with that on the grounds that it represents the empty space left where there was once a star, or we could replace the broken-star of the  template on the grounds that it isn't really a "broken FA" since it was never an FA to begin with.
The main argument for doing the former is because it would require a less widespread change, since there are many, many more failed FACs than demoted FAs, whereas the argument for doing the latter is that the "broken star" image suits a demoted FA more than a mere failed FAC. Personally, I'm kind of on the fence (leaning on the latter, though), and don't have any strong opinions on what is changed or how, but I feel that it's a very important distinction to make, one way or another. Plus it probably wouldn't be terrible difficult for someone to make a transparent "FA-star outline" image.
On a related note, I think we should also have a different image for , though that's less important. The generic FA star isn't really relevant to a template about a failed attempt to remove FA status; how about an FA star with a green "Checkmark" overlayed, to distinguish its significance and show that the Review ended in approval? -Silence 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if FARCfailed is going to have a star with a green tick, how about a star with a red cross for a FormerFA, and keep the "broken" star for FACfailed?  (The same rationale applies to the other featured content templates, btw - , , , etc) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. That sounds like a great idea. So, under the proposed scheme: A full star will represent an FA; a green-checked star will represent an FA that went through FARC successfully; a red-crossed star will represent a former FA, that went through FARC and was removed; an incomplete star will represent a failed FA candidate; an incomplete star with the missing piece being added will represent an FA candidate; and an enlarged missing piece will represent an FA going through FARC. I actually considered suggesting a crossed-out star myself, except that I was worried that an X shape wouldn't show up well on a star-shape, since they're so similar; if we put the X a little to the side, though, and make it stylized and shiny (like the check should look too), it should work. Anyway, I like the idea, and if we can get someone to do graphics for them, I think we should definitely make the switch; of the aforementioned image choices, the only one I don't much care for is the "incomplete star" for failed FACs, since it's not really a significant accomplishment to fail an FAC (it can happen to any article, even a one-sentence stub, after all), yet the image implies that it's "almost an FA", which may be misleading. If we had the dotted-line "empty FA star" image that I described earlier, I'd support replacing the "incomplete FA star" with that one for the failed FAC template. However, that's not pressingly important, so if there's support for keeping the "incomplete FA star" for failed FACs, I won't push. What matters most is making the templates easy to distinguish from one another at a glance, and a couple of new images are the best way to do that. -Silence 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, none of this is really that important - nice to have, not must have - but we need someone to draw some examples for the new graphics to see how they look (hint hint). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image change?