Template talk:FAOTY

tbh I think this template looked much better before. As an ambox it kinda just looks plain -- Wikipen guino45  (Talk ) (Contribs ) ( Articles ) 08:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know streamlining everything is the goal here but FAOTY seems a bit too special to just add another ambox. The big boi template kinda gave off that "look at me, this article is special and i'm gonna tell you why" feel. ulsk avatar.png Current Status: i will play vr shoot game only if picsoft makes some sort of tiny defense vr shooter (T • C • Y) 11:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There has to be some other way to make it stand out without being HELLO YES I AM A TEMPLATE though, which was the problem with the old one imo. It took up the entire width of the page but all it had to say was "this was the featured article for this year, click here to vote for the next one". --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions  - My Articles )  15:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I only think you think that because amboxes in general are overused on Fanon, and a lot of them could be reduced to a simple icon on the right hand corner like the quality ratings or even user rights. The only exception should probably be UQA since even HQA's aren't too uncommon to pass by among experienced users's articles these days. I might look into how to make this possible sometime later. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the gents here, the big FAOTY template made the article really stand out and as ULSK mentioned, it literally screamed "hey guys I'm special". Perhaps a compromise could be made? -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change nothing and leave everything nice and o r g a n i z e d ? --CanadaFlag.png Bro  Talk to me! OHYEAH.png 02:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Nice and organized" isn't always necessarily a good thing. Besides, you can have "nice and organized" while also getting the point of the template across, which is that the article is special, and atm the current template does not quite do that - verbally sure, but the template is rather insignificant. We cannot be close-minded on anything, we have to experiment with things and try out new stuff we haven't attempted or conceived before. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 07:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked for a compromise, I believe the removal of less necessary amboxes would emphasize the remainder. Less is more. --Mario Rk UBER-Kermit.svg 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I for one wouldn't mind a collapsible template for pages with more than one ambox, along the lines of Mario's chitter template. -- User:EDFan 1234  5  18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I disliked the old version because it was too bulky and not very well designed. However, at least the ambox stands out by using the deletion class box with the background. On one hand I like the uniformity, but if a better version was designed then maybe it could be considered. --  C  K   Admin  00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

hi guys am i late on the battlefield?

Cheesy jokes aside, I agree with WP, ULSK, Pen, etc. - if you don't look carefully, somebody might think that the article was for deletion. Despite its former clunkiness, the previous one looked, in my eyes, to be better.  Penguinpuffdude   It's time for a chat, no?    01:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)