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 ![]() ![]() |
Template talk:Crebox
- This is the ugliest nav template I have seen.
- It is actually, for somewhat related reasons, physically painful.
WalkerWalkerWalker 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ye largely-symbolic-and-not-really-necessary-these-days supernatural entities, that's terrible! Bicyclewheel
11:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Nearly three weeks later[edit]
Betterified, and that shade of purply blue is awesome. So there. Bicyclewheel 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, that purple is really burning my retinas. Ugh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your retinas clearly lack awesomeness. Get new ones from Doctor Bates. Also, check the code for that colour. Bicyclewheel
21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, is there a way to make the left column less wide? The proportions seem kinda unbalanced at the moment. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Your retinas clearly lack awesomeness. Get new ones from Doctor Bates. Also, check the code for that colour. Bicyclewheel
Lol, the subsections were indented because they were subsections. (eg, creationists indented 0, AIG indented 1). And the bar was black because the creationnav box is black. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't there a less ugly way to show "this is a subsection of this" in a template? How does Wikipedia do it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Often, they don't.
But I think it can be very useful -- the logical fallacy template is a good example, where informal fallacies are all indented under the informal fallacy tab. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, this is how they do it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- If you wanna write the template, be my guest. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, about that... *backs away slowly* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Hehe. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, about that... *backs away slowly* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- If you wanna write the template, be my guest. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, this is how they do it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Often, they don't.
Intelligent Geography[edit]
Shouldn't "Intelligent geography" (Flat earth) be added to the intelligent alternatives? I don't want to add it because the template is used on so many articles. Christopher (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)