Template talk:Infobox Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This infobox template is intended for use with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience. Please check Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience before making changes. --Christopher Thomas 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting peculiarities

I've rolled back some of the changes that were recently made to the template. I appreciate the effort made; it just turns out that there are a few quirks of how tables seem to work in Wikipedia that required them. Specifically:

• The disciplines/topics, original proponents/origprop, and current proponents/currentprop fields are intended to hold lists. If there isn't a newline before the substituted text, the first element of the list isn't parsed properly. This makes single, non-bulletted entries look slightly uglier, due to vertical displacement; better solutions would be welcome.
• Similarly, if there isn't a "vertical-align:top" style hint, then in some browsers (mine, for one), a list with more than one entry will cause the title of the field to be in the middle of the cell, instead of aligned with the top of the list.
• I feel that having the title in larger text is important, as people will read the large text first. I've added this back in without disturbing the background text field.

The efforts to improve the template were definitely appreciated, however! --Christopher Thomas 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. However, I don't get your first item above. It looks like these should contain bulleted lists, but when I browse through the pages using this template, I don't see any boxes which contain bulleted lists. Is this a function of my browser (Safari), or is nobody using the template correctly? I had removed the bullets from Paleocontact theory and it looks much better without them... except that the top-alignment means the columns don't align properly. Epastore 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Every box linked appears to use bullets, with the exception of Paleocontact theory. Crop circle also uses a one-line list to hold multiple affected topic designations, but this looks like it was accidental rather than deliberate. I think that using a comma-delimited list makes the list less readable, but I'm open to discussion. I'll post a note about this on the Physics and Pseudoscience pages to get more opinions. I can see arguments for and against both versions. --Christopher Thomas 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: Informal poll is here. --Christopher Thomas 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've balanced newlines in the rows that have them, so things look good either way and format is a non-issue. I'm embarrassed that it took me several days to think of this. --Christopher Thomas 05:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test renderings

These are test instances of the infobox designed to assess rendering under varying conditions. Any revised version of the infobox should be checked to make sure it still looks good for all test cases. New cases may be added as new pathological situations are identified. Please don't add comments to this section (instead, put it in a new thread heading above). --Christopher Thomas 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed science: Non-bulletted single-item test
Disciplines:	Foo
Core tenets:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Year proposed:	Bar
Original proponents:	Baz
Current proponents:	Qux

Disputed science: Bulletted list test
Disciplines:	Foo Bar
Core tenets:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. So does the slow brown fox.
Year proposed:	Baz (not a list)
Original proponents:	Qux Poit
Current proponents:	Narf Wibble

Disputed science: Comma-delimited list test
Disciplines:	Foo, Bar Baz, Long topic name here, Qux Poit, Narf Wibble
Core tenets:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. So does the slow brown fox.
Year proposed:	Foo
Original proponents:	Bar Baz, Extremely long name here, Qux Poit, and Narf Wibble
Current proponents:	Bar Baz, Extremely long name here, Qux Poit, and Narf Wibble