Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Length of articles"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(we like conciseness here) |
({{policy proposal}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{policy proposal}} | ||
| + | |||
Do not be liberal in your addition of the {{tl|stub}} template to articles. | Do not be liberal in your addition of the {{tl|stub}} template to articles. | ||
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. | 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. | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:02, April 3, 2007
This a proposal to improve Conservapedia or its policies and guidelines. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.
Do not be liberal in your addition of the {{stub}} template to articles. 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.