2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

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 PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Nature

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yes, we need it. Obviously right now it's a sub-stub, but maybe we can add more? (It was a red link, so I wrote the awesome stub) ħumanUser talk:Human 23:18, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Should we fork this between Nature the journal and just plan old nature? tmtoulouse oppress 23:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Could we fold major journals like Nature and Science into a single article? tmtoulouse oppress 23:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
It should have been called "Nature (magazine)" yes. Anyone give a shit enough to do the work? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:03, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Eh, it is not hard work. I think Nature (journal) is better. tmtoulouse oppress 02:01, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that makes sense. Glad you like my "fork" templatey thing. I detest all work and hope that my suggestions will inspire younger, more energetic contributors to do the "heavy lifting". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes I like the fork template, in fact it is enshrined in stubbot who will ignore pages with it, and I set stubbot back in the day to replace competing templates with fork. tmtoulouse oppress 02:13, 19 August 2008 (EDT)