Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?
!  THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting 
No. they do not contain substance.
Tim, I disagree with your change on the page count. The study pages are very useful and should qualify towards page count. For example, a page of what are the most important Modern Terms beginning in "M" is a valuable (and even debatable) page that should count towards the total. I'm reverting the page back. Feel free to take a vote on this if you like. Aschlafly 00:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I disagree. The goal is to eventually have as many terms as possible, not just the best or most important ones. The pages are not there to show what the most important terms are, they are to sort the terms to make it easier to find them. (Tim S.)
 Counter  The study guide pages are important entries that make Conservapedia better than other encyclopedias like Wackypedia. These entries take more time to build than an ordinary entry, and are extremely helpful to students. An entry about blitzkrieg, for example, only tells a student about one entry. But the Modern Era Terms B gives the student more information and a way to learn far more than simply blitzkrieg. These are important entries that should be part of the overall count.Aschlafly 17:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)
The term lists don't exactly qualify as entries, but they are a extremely important part of Conservapedia. For example, since we do not have a printed list of the Modern Era Terms, I will be relying on the lists on Conservapedia to tell me the terms I need to know for our upcoming final exam. If the term list were not there, I would have to find important terms in the lecture and search for them one by one and would most likely still miss many key terms. This shows just how valuable the terms lists are. They make studying easy and save hours of time. Therefore, I feel that the term lists are just as important as the term pages.
As I said before, I'm not sure that the term lists are not technically "entries". Perhaps we should replace "entries" with another word such as "pages" in the first sentence.
SharonS 17:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)
No I do not think that they qualify as "entries"
Comment: Can anyone think of a debate topic that has bearing on anything important? This debate hardly seems worth the time it takes.
 Mathematical resolution: Let S be the set of all acceptable entries. I wonder if Tim is suggesting that S should not include an entry that could be a set containing itself. In other words, is Tim saying that S should include all things A that are not elements of themselves?
 <math>S=\{A\mid A\not\in A\}.</math>
 I am compelled to ask Tim this: can his proposed set of all acceptable entries be an element of itself? I'm afraid Tim's proposed limit on what constitutes an entry may lead to a selfcontradiction. See Russell's Paradox. Aschlafly 20:14, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Reply: It is impossible to mathematically prove a matter of opinion. It is like trying to mathematically prove that Apples taste better than oranges. TimSvendsen 13:31, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Ben has a very good point. Whatever the outcome of this debate, the only difference it is going to make for our Conservapedia is in one number on the main page. There are probably a little less than two hundred term list pages. Currently, this is about 1/13 of all our entries, but if Conservapedia continues to grow as it has so far, two hundred entries will be very insignificant in only a few months. Although I would like to have the term lists counted, the final outcome does not matter much at all to Conservapedia.SharonS 21:06, 5 January 2007 (EST)
 Ben and Tim, did you notice Sharon's view? I would like to have the term lists counted .... (emphasis added). Let's look at the math:
 <math>Outcome = \sum_{i=1}^k (p_i)(v_i)</math>
 where <math>p_i = </math> contributions by user number <math>i</math>

<math>v_i = </math>vote on this issue by user number <math>i</math>, such that <math>v_i = \pm1</math> 
<math>k = </math>total number of users
 Is Outcome > 0 ? Methinks so.Aschlafly 21:46, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Comment: Look at the bright side: This may be a stupid debate, but it's one more undisputable entry under our belts!
P.S. I know that the LaTex math is fun to use, but I don't think that this debate can be reasonably translated into mathematical equations.
Comment It doesn't matter. Nobody ought to believe that a raw count of the number of entries in Conservapedia means very much anyway. Personally I think the page should just give rough round numbers and say "over 2000," "over 3000," etc. If anyone thought the count itself mattered, you could always write a computer program to generate a million entries like Four hundred and seventysix: Four hundred and seventysix is the number after four hundred and seventyfive and four hundred and seventyseven. It is even. It is not prime. It is 476 in Arabic numerals and CDLXXVI in Roman numerals." Dpbsmith 11:34, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I don't think the lists should count. The purpose of the counter (I would assume) is to give an acurate measurement of the substance of the site. The term lists do not contain any substance, only links to other pages, therefore they should not be counted. It would be false advertizing to count them. Also I agree with Dpbsmith that we should only give the number in thousands. TimSvendsen 11:50, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Comment A big reason why I defend including the key term lists in the entry count is that the key term lists represent a great deal of helpful work. I've spent hours building some of them. One key list has much more value to students than a single entry. A very helpful entry, such as a list, should be included in the overall count. Let's give credit where it is due.
Wikipedia's entry count includes a huge amount of junk, like new words used by pop singers in someone's favorite song. Not that I want to imitate Wikipedia, but a useful term list has value and should count.Aschlafly 14:29, 6 January 2007 (EST)
They are not entries, just lists, How about if we changed to say "2600 (or whatever the correct number is) entries and 250 term lists."
Resolution: That's a great idea, Tim! Go ahead and make that change. There might be a way to improve on "term lists," such as "study key term lists" or some other more descriptive phrase. Perhaps even a link to explain it!! You can decide whether such a link should itself count as an entry! Aschlafly 16:42, 6 January 2007 (EST)
>>This debate hardly seems worth the time it takes.
If I see this aright, it is whether lists count as content? Yes. Lists can be very valuable and worthwhile and worthy as content. I can list the names of areas of thought and that can be very instructive and useful to someone hoping to find the best of thinking of humanity. Or a list of math topics needed for a graduate in physics  very needy if I'm at home wondering whether I have covered all things considered needful. Bibliographies, keyword lists, glossaries  all can be very helpful. An index in a book can be something to be thankful for.