Template talk:Pseudosciencenav

I like the new colors too, but I felt it was appropriate for it to be the color of crap. ThunderkatzHo! 10:53, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I just thought it was a little difficult to read as blue text on a brown background. 10:56, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Re-evaluating this template
Are there any known criteria for:
 * 1) what pseudoscience articles this template is & isn't put on?
 * 2) which pseudoscience articles are linked in it?
 * 3) the distinction between "main topics" and "other topics"?

Since there are quite a lot of pseudoscience articles now, should we maybe reconfigure this so that one section shows a random selection (like with the sexuality template)? 09:31, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * That would work. We have the psuedoscience portal for extensive coverage.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 10:01, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * I might rejig this template then.  10:51, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * I put in a sub page to mess around with, I assume this won't affect the existing template when it's transcluded? Template:Pseudosciencenav/rejig  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 11:11, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * I've actually rejigged it in my sandbox & put it in here, based on the original. It now shows ten fairly major pseudosciences (a more comprehensive list than the previous one), followed by ten more picked at random from the category.   12:26, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * I like it, it would be nice with a picture like the sexuality template but I really can't think of anything worth it without changing the size far too much.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 04:29, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I've tried putting some zodiac pictures in - what do you think? It does make it quite tall.  (Also, can we now delete the rejig page?)   21:00, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * I changed my mind again & put in borders representing other forms of ps too.  21:54, 24 January 2009 (EST)

When certain random articles are shown, this thing is really wide. Can we limit the width, so the title wraps? Better yet, since it's a "nav" thing, can we put it at the bottom of articles, and make it wide rather than tall?  ħ uman  22:32, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * I quite like having it as a side bar. I don't know how to limit the width of titles.  Was hoping somebody else would.   08:54, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * Done. Change the 50px if you think it's too small. -- Nx  talk 09:14, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * Nope, it's still stretching with wide ones. Try refreshing it a few times & you'll see. I've tried tinkering with it a lot on preview & can't figure it out.  Basically, this template is a bit of a mess & wasn't set up properly in the first place.  There's supposed to be a green border, which appears if you change the "table" to "div", but you have to take out the next line of code to stop the border being around the whole screen.  Also the text is supposed to be smaller than it shows - again this happens if it's changed to div, but all the RW navigation stuff disappears from the screen, so this isn't a good move.  Anyway, I'm out of my depth trying to sort it out.   09:31, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I've only limited the width of the random section (and it's working for me, random entries that are too long are split), but adding max-width to the other sections should limit them too. -- Nx  talk 09:34, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * What browser are you using? It isn't working for me in IE.   09:36, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * FF. IE didn't have max-width & co. until version 7, and even now it's buggy. -- Nx  talk 09:43, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I can't find what version mine is, came with the laptop about a year ago so should be fairly up to date. Anyway, it's no big deal if this template expands on some browsers & not on others.  It is a bit rubbish that the other stuff which is supposed to happen on this template doesn't (e.g. green border), but again no big deal.   10:10, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I've copied it to my sandbox, I'll see what I can do. One question though: What purpose does the "Infobox" class table serve? If I remove it nothing changes (that's the reason there's no green border, it's defined for the infoobox table, not the one created using {}), and (I think) you can't have a table inside a table (the w3c validator is complaining too). -- Nx  talk 10:16, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I have no idea. The first line of code (with the "infobox" table) sets some parameters (e.g. green border, text size 80%) which are ignored by the rest of the template.  The next line sets some different parameters - I've just ammended this to include the green border.  When I tried changing from "table" to "div", I found that the parameters set in the first line did work, but that the navigation tabs on the left of the screen had vanished, which I guess means that there was something not closed properly.   10:20, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * That's because you can't have a table inside a table (so the browser probably drops the first definition), but you can have a table inside a div. I think it's safe to remove the first line then and maybe add the class to the next line. Same goes Template:sex -- Nx  talk 10:24, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I deleted the superfluous table tags for these two. How does it look in IE now? Never mind, doesn't work -- Nx  talk 11:18, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * Looks great now. Thanks v much, Nx.   13:36, 25 January 2009 (EST)

The "popular" section
I'd like to get rid of it and just have 13 random links. We have the portal and the cat (redundant?) at the bottom if someone wan't to see them all. Thoughts before I do this? 02:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would certainly shorten it as this is one of the longer ones and articles large enough for it to fit and not look silly are usually the "big" articles of a pseudoscience sub-section.  16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a crack at it later tonight then. 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, better. 11:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is less more?
One the one hand, there are apparently a few people seeing these headers split onto two lines. But it looks bulky that way, IMHO, and very wasteful. I think that's mine and RA's views based on the last string of edits. I'm willing to concede to line breaks, but they seem unnecessary. I think these headers should stay, however, as the first colour bar is better visually. 16:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I was focusing more on the phraseology—"One of our many articles about ...pseudosciences" versus "One of our articles on ...pseudoscience".  I may be wrong regarding the grammar, though; should pseudoscience be plural or singular?   19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see RA. Yeah, I forgot to make sure I didn't break the grammar! I like the "many" because we do have a lot of them.  21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we do. That was the idea behind me doing a few other ones recently; break it up a bit more and make the navs a little more relevant. 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a lot better back here, it is shit now. I like the popular section as it made sure the good articles were prominent rather than the lucky bag approach where you could get gold or a dead rat. 12:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I do agree with Pi here. 12:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do people want the longer one or the shorter one? 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shorter. How about this - instead of ditching the "best", we ditch the "random", and perhaps have one link to a random pseudoscience article, in the section with the portal and list (why do we have both of those?  19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, dropping random dpl.... your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. 11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, added both back in, but cut both lists down to size. 12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)