Is it just me, or does the icon look like a clamshell? --Lethargy 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. What's the relevance of that image to the template? I checked the image page and the Commons, and can't find any grounds for its inclusion. --Sasoriza 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's supposed to look like a peacock's tail.... BTW I think this template is a little too flashy for the article space. Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have thrown together Image:No-peacock.svg. Anyone not want me to replace the current vector image.

v.

Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby emit admiration for your delectable image. Be praised, o Monkeyblue! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed! notwist (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Peacock words tend to be obvious, especially in an article overflowing with them. There is a link for those who do understand the phrase "peacock words". I don't see any problems with this template. I suggest this template be removed from the new and questionable "Templates needing talk links and other improvements" catagory. Neitherday 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do it. Thanks for your attention. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Agree. The image is completely gratuitous and should be removed. user:Dorftrottel  09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. I like the peacock symbol. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Inline templates doesn't show it, so I assume it doesn't exist. It wouldn't be spectacularly usefel, either. There is nothing subtle about peacock terms. If you discover one or two in an article or section, it's relatively easy to just remove it, so an inline template wouldn't of much use. user:Dorftrottel  09:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peacock_inline Here you go. Chrononem ☎ 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Broader discussion of the issue here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The wording was changed by BozMo (talk · contribs); all I did was fix the code so it would categorize correctly and such. As far as I can tell, the reasoning is that whether something is peacock wording has nothing to do with WP:V, it's still peacock wording either way. I've dropped a note at User talk:BozMo in case they're not watching this page. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was replaced to match the wording at the Manual of Style section linked to. There was a mismatch between the template and MoS. If you want to change the MoS I suggest you open a discussion there. --BozMo talk 06:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I would encourage you to try and help improve the relevant bits of the Manual of Style. Those particular parts were mangled in 2009 when they tried to roll Weasel and Peacock into "reliable sources" and they have since been a bit incoherent. --BozMo talk 10:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But then wouldn't the talk page have to be tagged... which in turn... G41rn8 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]