Template talk:Sciencenav

Title of Sciencenav template

The previous one was more scientific "Put your goggles on, it's time to do SCIENCE". This one is punchy, but leaves one wondering "Where's the intellectualism in that?" or "We know! And you didn't have to be profane about it." For me, it was the latter. Is anybody against changing the title of the Sciencenav template to the previous one? If so, then suggest one that most people will find suitable. And before you accuse me of being too sensitive and that we shouldn't censor ourselves etc., don't bother because that's not the topic at hand. What is the topic is whether we should change the title.Several ingredients (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Those titles have been bones of contention ever since these were first made. I just prefer them on one line rather than two but I don't particularly care about what it says. ^gnostic 08:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We could make the title simply "hot" and use our own joke rather than someone else's (though if we do keep this one, we should definitely add the comma, so as not to imply that science is in the process of working bitches). Thunderkatz^Ho! 08:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP, and it's not just this template too. I liked "Come the revolution, we shall all be...", although in that case "Communism" doesn't work, so not a big deal. But the conspiracy navigation box was better off as "Some Dare Call It Conspiracy", a sort of reply to Gary Allen, however the "theories" part can be underlined to put an emphasis. Same for Paranormal ("You are now entering The Twilight Zone.") Personally, the only nav template I think has truly been improved is the creationism one. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at Navsidebar and you'll see why that's not easy. It's possible to add another parameter but it's extra faff for 95% of them where the title and base article are the same. ^gnostic 09:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "it works, bitches" is too much of an injoke, maybe just "it works"? -- Nx / talk 09:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "in" joke, xkcd is about as "out" as you can get. ^gnostic 09:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In-joke would be xkcdsucks. Although it really isn't applicable. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disregard the faff comment. It's possible to have an optional parameter to send the title elsewhere. I'll implement it later. ^gnostic 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the cat

The science category is getting kinda crowded. What is the point of subcats if everything is all in the same cat anyway? If no one minds, I propose we remove the cat add option in the template. Тy^Talk. 03:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The template uses dpl to bring things out of that category. Embedding it into the template ensures that whatever the template is added to will show up on the random list. We can change it to a hidden category, so that it's not linked to on the page and is effectively only for the dpl rather than navigation. ^gnostic 12:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

New template looks kind of fugly...

mostly due to mismatch with the other templates. Perhaps a vote somewhere should be warranted? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, just switch all the others. Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My only regret about the new templates are losing the titles (For Science: "It works!"). And the logo looks a little too glossy, but that's just me. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You can those back in really easily, but there was so much arse-pain with regards to what they should say that it seemed best just to flatten it. ^sshole 11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Make it optional. Problem solved. -- Nx / talk 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, bring it to a vote or something. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the bump....

...but I was just about to bring this up, and saw it was here. Mismatch between this navbar and the others' seems to be pretty big, so hence I would like to call a vote on what we're going to do. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

2

Should we change the science navbar back like every other navbar?

(Voting up means "yes", voting down means "no, change it back", and voting neutral means "do nothing".)

Why are you voting with that? It's hilariously easy to abuse. Also, no.Humorless fascist^sociopath 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to win. "They all look the same, they look crap" - "They look different, they look crap." Sigh (girl-look-at-that-body). ^narchist 12:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you were feeling over productive we could just change them all to look like the scienenav template. Humorless fascist^sociopath 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that, while it plays fine on the pages it is on, this template messes up at template:portal_portal - the td align center centers all the article names and the template rides over the template name. So something about it - not the appearance but the invisible formatting - is broken/different than the other portal templates. ħuman 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Will you take a screenshot of exactly where it's cheesed? 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's [here] and I pmailed you the shot to save bw.

By the way, it's not that important that important for all the portals to look the same, since one rarely encounters two different ones in a row. ħuman 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Make it the same as the other nav templates

Bringing it up again. Any reason not to change it? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)