There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Template:Pseudoscientist
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:Pseudoscientist | Result: Delete[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Rather pointless and not used very much. Doesn't look particularly good either. Christopher (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not very sexy. Spud (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Provides room to other psuedoscientists. Contractor (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- What does "provides room to other psuedoscientists" mean? Christopher (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- In the sense that we are giving more space to pseudoscience field, despite a standard template can be still used. Contractor (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Christopher (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- In the sense that we are giving more space to pseudoscience field, despite a standard template can be still used. Contractor (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- What does "provides room to other psuedoscientists" mean? Christopher (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Castaigne2 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- Like other infoboxen, this provides a useful at-a-glance assessment of the featured pseud. Ithaca8 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unlike some other, purely derogatory templates, this looks rather useful. What it might need is more usage and publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge/redirect[edit]
Goat[edit]
- I think a generalized "TLDR box" could be a good idea. This one is a bit specific and isn't exactly gorgeous. 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like how this pushes the category box. This box have to be placed somewhere else in the article if it's to be used in more articles. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- this will have to be redone if its going to be used Vorarchivist (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)