Template talk:Pseudoscience

If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.

--Richard Dawkins

Edit war?

We seem to have a bit of a battle over this one. I think we should stick with the one up now: "This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted in the scientific community as a valid discipline. Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology."--Bob_M (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I saw that. HG kept trying to add argumentation to it. HG actually wants to argue against the entire site, as far as I can tell. human^{be in} 13:36, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

category?

Can we fix this template so it adds the "pseodoscience" category? human^{be in} 16:51, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Color

I think we sould change the color for this. Grey is so UGLY! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 14:55, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Well, first, let's see if anyone else agrees. Then, what do you think would be better? Aqua sure isn't. human 15:19, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, sure it is : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I hate this

This is an incredibly ugly and garish banner that hangs above some articles and makes me not want to look at them. I am going to replace it with an expandable version of milder tones. Any objections?--^talk 06:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind it. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinks: smaller & to the right might be better? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 06:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it could still hand in the center on top, but that (1)the color of the border could be softened and (2) the message could be made brief, with an option to expand it to see the whole longer thing.--^talk 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AS you can see above, there was discussion - wait? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 06:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll make a mock-up so people can compare. I won't just switch it, don't worry.--^talk 06:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay compare.--^talk 06:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Alert
This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.

Pseudoscience Alert
This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.

Nx was designing some more restrained templates at one stage, have a look through his sandboxes. - π 07:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Alert

This topic is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.

Cut back on duplicate wording, amend size of font & box - just playin' ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

what is this template for anyway? Refuting pseudoscience is part of RW's purpose, so articles on fringe physics and medicine are going to be pseudoscience-related anyway. There's no need to shout in people's faces about it. We don't have similar templates for authoritarian politics or logical errors, after all. Real first name and last initial (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It makes out position on the subject clear from the start. Not all of our articles on science are actually about psudoscience. Perhaps a "logical errors" template would be a good idea.--Bob^{It's cold!} 10:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I "agree" with AD, I think. And some other people. Let's just get rid of this template entirely, if we can't reduce it to one line. ħuman 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Nx's drop-down versions, but if we use them we may be torn to pieces by people who turn everything off in their browser and then complain when things don't work. 10:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't use javascript, unless you're on IE6, where a javascript workaround is needed. If you turn css off completely or your browser is really crappy, the dropdowns will simply be displayed always. -- Nx / talk 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, as someone said above, our articles don't need this template, their content speaks for themselves. (?) IE, if an article was just "describing" EVP without debunking it, the template would make sense. But we don't do that, so the template is pointless and we should remove it and delete it. ħuman 11:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we replace it with a category alone, and just rewrite the ledes, maybe?--^talk 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, not all our articles on science deal with psuedoscience. Global warming for one. but we could certainly do with some consistency because we also have a sidebar. Perpetual motion has a banner and a sidebar. Intelligent design only has a banner. Others only have a sidebar. And others only a cat.--Bob^{It's cold!} 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Phasing out

While I've been phasing this out to replace it with the green sidebar, I've decided to be organised and actually get rid of it entirely. I'm keeping the bullshit one since it's not quite as fugly, but overall I'd like to see us phase out these top "warnings" completely and replace them with sidebar navigation templates; they're neater and much more useful. ^gnostic 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of making more specific paragraphs as the pseudoscience category contains practically everything. One I've noticed would be "psychic powers" that would probably work better than pseudoscience for some of them. First things first though. ^gnostic 13:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 and +2. In fact, you could just make it a redirect to {{pseudosciencenav}} and then do nice subtemplates as you have done - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan of redirecting templates. However, I am keen to keep making these "sub template" ones, as the psuedoscience template is on so many pages it's starting to lose its meaning and becoming quite useless for navigation - it's why I went through them a while ago and added the paranormal category, I mean, yes "paranormal" does imply that we think it's real or something like that, but that's what it's called and it's a distinct pseudoscience to, say, homeopathy or perpetual motion - but I digress. So any suggestions for other categories would be excellent. I was thinking UFOlogy but I'm not sure we have enough articles to need it, I know there's a few on aliens, aliensdidit and so on. ^gnostic 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)