Forum:Headers (pseudoscience, bullshit, etc.)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Following the carp here, I've came to the conclusion that I really, really dislike these headers. We used to be in a situation where several articles piled them up and it looked horrid - hence a collapsible "warnings" template was developed. But I really think they serve no purpose at all. We have the categories, we have the sidebar navigation templates (which have a use) therefore we don't need these blazing headers that A) state the obvious and B) distract from the article. I therefore propose that we dump the lot of them. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Nx / talk 19:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I put some of these into Category:Message box templates a while ago. (no relation to Template:Evil incarnate) -- Nx / talk 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Why are you trying to destroy my wiki? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I reckon pretty much only Cover is actually needed. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I'd rather we didn't have that one either, but I don't know what to replace it with. I played around with a WP-style star in upper right corner thing, but I didn't like it and the formatting is problematic.
Btw, we also need this ugly gray wall of text. -- Nx / talk 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do. But that one usually doesn't stick around long. And cover is important, shame that people don't read it and muck up the lead on cover stories. Anyway, shall we eliminate them one by one? 1. remove a header boxy thing from all articles, 2. delete it? Pseudoscience, bullshit, what are the others that are stupid? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are to get rid of said template headers, can we then be sure to eliminate them from the pages first, so as not to create assloads of redlinks in the process? Perhaps this is a job best suited for a bot to do. Punky Your mental puke relief 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a bot for that. -- Nx / talk 20:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)