1,263
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + +
Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count? (view source)
Revision as of 16:50, January 6, 2007
, 16:50, January 6, 2007no edit summary
'''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 seventy-six]]: '''Four hundred and seventy-six is the number after four hundred and seventy-five and four hundred and seventy-seven. It is even. It is not prime. It is 476 in Arabic numerals and CDLXXVI in Roman numerals." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:34, 6 January 2007 (EST)
'''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 seventy-six]]: '''Four hundred and seventy-six is the number after four hundred and seventy-five and four hundred and seventy-seven. It is even. It is not prime. It is 476 in Arabic numerals and CDLXXVI in Roman numerals." [[User:Dpbsmith|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.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:50, 6 January 2007 (EST)