Template talk:Crap

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

I love you aussieintn. --girlvinyl 23:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about a seperate template called {{crapnotcrap}} that would add the boilerplate text but not the category? That way we could have the joke on articles but not have 190 articles in our crap section... (Of course, 190 articles only makes it out 3rd most populated category behind Stub and LJ Users.) Dr. Park N. Stones

That's basically what {{notcrap}} is. --Lucky Pierre 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is "a rat" in "separate".--Buffy the Apostrophe Slayer (talk) 12:22, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• ParkingStones, there is a simple reason why the category is included in the template. It is expected that people will use the crap category to find the crap and clean it up. Sure, they can also use the "What links here" link, but we don't expect contributors to be that smart. Furthermore, crap should be categorized as crap, so the crap category is applicable whenever the crap template is included. --Jacknstock 03:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Are we aware that it's crapping in quintiplucate? --badlydrawnjeff 03:30, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a little much.... —quasidan 19:47, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Huge template

This template is friggin huge, it screws up the pages' layout. Since we have so many pages labeled {{crap}}, I think this template should be reverted to the one-liner we had. The current really messes things up. ~ Krade 19:57, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. The one-liner is better. Just leave the category. It helps contributors find the crap for de-crapping. This is why we have categories. --Jacknstock 03:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)