Category talk:Stubs

I don't think we need this category per the following reasons: it was decided early on, almost 6 years, ago not to have a "stubs" category or template. It had first been proposed, discussed and decided in early 2007, and since then has been re-proposed, re-discussed, and re-affirmed many times over the years that Conservapedia does not need a "stubs" category or template.

Relevant quotes:

• Aschlafly: "the stub templates give the reader and volunteers the misconception that short articles are lacking." ref: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive52

• Editor: What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? (Sysop Geo) removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. From talkpage: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2

• Sysop DanH: "Stubs: We're trying to keep the site free of as many stubs as possible" From: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Order

• Editor: "Hi Ed, I see you've removed a couple of Stubs I've put on things. I'm unsure how they are meant to be used. Could you explain it for me? Thanks.--JohnD 2 December 2008. Admin Ed Poor Replies: "Writing the next sentence in the article takes less work than tagging it as a stub + defending the tag." Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Ballotechnics

• Editor: "I realize that I might have been overzealous, but your reverting a good many of my changes... () I'm just saying if you remove the stub its harder for me to "refind" the article to edit." Aschlafly Replies: "Elamdri, pardon my frustration, but you quickly inserted dozens of ugly stubs that defaced the entries. This didn't add any value at all. It took me time to remove them, and some valuable edits may have been lost in this silly process. How about simply improving some entries?--Aschlafly 11 March 2007 Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive2

• Aschlafly: "Perhaps I dislike, more than most, the Wikipedia style of inserting huge block disclaimers at the top of an entry. It seems to deface the entry. It's not a big deal if it is used for a half-dozen or dozen entries, which are then promptly improved. It is a defacement if used for dozens and dozens of entries, and then the person gets to tired and never returns to improve the entries. That leaves the site worse off than before." From: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive2

• Editor: "You recently removed the Stub template from the article Aesthetics, do you really believe there is no more than a single sentence to be said on the subject?" Aschlafly: " This isn't Wikipedia, where stubs are overused. Sometimes a one-sentence entry is better than a 5,000-word entry. More words is not always better. Often more words are worse." Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive14

• Aschlafly: "5. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts. " Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

• Aschlafly: "13. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stub templates" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting templates on entries." Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

• Editor: "I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the stub template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and User:Conservative IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short." Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

• SharonS: "The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting." - SharonS 4 April 2007 Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Commandments/Archive_3

• Aschlafly: "Stubs are used on Wikipedia as a bullying tool, a way to discredit entries someone may not like. An astounding percentage of entries on Wikipedia have some kind of stub, which are deadening in effect.--Aschlafly 11 April 2007 Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive14

• Aschlafly: "On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs" Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberals_and_friendship

• Aschlafly: "We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so." From talk page discussion: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

• Aschlafly: "I've even warned users for adding too many "stubs". Wikipedia inserts these eyesores anywhere and everywhere. If an article is short, why do we need a glaring eyesore to say that? It's obvious the article is short. Moreover, we like conciseness here. We're not like Wikipedia, which implicitly acts like more words is better. A short entry is often a better entry." http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Length_of_articles

• Aschlafly: "Many of those stub designations are improper and should simply be edited out, particularly for economics or scientific topics. I've warned users about overzealous insertions of "stub". Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive13

• Aschlafly: "My point is that users should not simply go around and insert "stub" on every short entry. Unlike Wikipedia, which has very long-winded and confusing descriptions, we like conciseness here. A short, concise entry is sometimes the best entry, particularly in fields of science and economics. So let's not assign "stub" to every entry that is short. --Aschlafly 13 April 2007 Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive13

• Aschlafly: "I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks." - Aschlafly 01:22, 9 April 2007 Reference: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

• Aschlafly: Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are better than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and we don't want them here.--Aschlafly 01:03, 9 April 2007 http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia

I could cite many more examples, but I think this is enough to show that the site owner does not want a "stub" template or category. Conservapedia has done without it for almost 6 years, no reason to add it now. I propose deleting this category for the above reasons. Respectfully, Taj 23:38, 3 November 2012 (EDT)