From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Too many section headers? Too long? Nah.[edit]

About this October 7 edit adding two banner templates without discussion here: 1. Section headers are most easily navigated via the TOC, IMHO. 2. Too long? Just use the TOC to navigate. Since the prose size is 55230 B (8460 words), I consider this article in depth and not too long. See WP:Article size for the very approximate size range considerations. I'd like to just remove these two templates. Discuss? User:Czar?--Lexein (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that it's comprehensive, but it can certainly be pared down for verbosity. It's on the long side, especially for being over 50kB. I think the tags were justified and I haven't read a rule about necessarily discussing before adding them. (Also see #Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus... above.) We definitely have section overkill: lots of little paragraphs, excessive level-3+ subheaders. It's a surmountable, structural concern. I'd offer to rearrange for flow if I had the time. Per BRD, you're welcome to remove the banners if you feel strongly, but I wonder what other people think. czar  14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no rule about discussing before adding tags, but without discussion, it's just a drive-by tag - that was the point I was going for. I'm certainly ok with gradual section by section trimming for tighter prose, and some removal of redundancy across sections. But sections serve a clarifying purpose, so I'd like to see them stay, until a compelling new structure is offered. It's not an essay, or a wall-of-text Britannica article, so I'm sure there's some middle ground. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I tagged acting on reader feedback, as mentioned. (#Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus...) I'll propose a better section structure in the future unless someone beats me to it. czar  23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Czar, I have edited out 3 sub-headings that I thought were unnecessary, and inappropriate. Having done that, I agree with Lexein that the use, and number of headings is suitable for good style. I intend to remove the tag re headings in two weeks, unless you or another editor strenuously object. In general, we need to fix the problems and/or get rid of the tags. This subject is too important to tags sitting there in the long term. It undermines the credibility of the article. Also, please remember that on mobile phones the reader sees "This article has issues" without the issues being explained. This is undesirable. With regard to whether the article is too long, I don't have a strong view either way. Some further action required, my friends. Let me know if you are too busy to do it, and you want me to help. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool. My primary concern is the number of level four and higher headers. Many sections can be combined. The prose in this hyper-sectioned article leads towards headers followed by single paragraph blobs of text. A more flowing prose would be an improvement. Specifically I see this happening under "Leaks", gov't responses (and why is there a "Facebook" section on its own?) On the length, while it's feasible to agree on 54 kB of prose, it can likely use a bit more concision and summary style. Unrelated to these specifically is the financial industry section written in wp:proseline. I don't have time to look at these things right now, but that was my rationale for the tag. czar  21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Czar, I have removed a significant number of sub-headings, and I believe that any more "pruning" of headings will make the article worse, rather than better. I have removed the tag again. Please resolve the remaining issues in a timely manner, because it's already been many, many months, and support from other editors is unfortunately lacking. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think the number of subheaders is insane and makes the article's prose really fragmented, but if I'm the only one it bothers enough, I'm fine with removing the tag as I don't have the time to edit it myself czar  18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I mildly disagree with you about the headers, and subheaders; they're pretty reasonable, now. I'm moving more in line with you on the size of the article; it is massive! If the article were significantly smaller, it would have fewer headers, and subheaders. Anyway, like you I don't have enough time to change the size much, and I don't have experience in splitting off sections into new articles. The current tag, unfortunately, will need to stay. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Split to Reception of WikiLeaks[edit]

Yes, as the top of page says: article is too long is right. I suggest to split (move) everything from WikiLeaks#Backlash and pressure (except Operational challenges subsection) to Reception of WikiLeaks. This seems to be a good place for it. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No comments? OK, I'll do it, please revert if disagree. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexa Rank[edit]

I think that the Alexa Rank should be updated from time to time, not only for this article, but all articles. Am I the only one? Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Philipnelson99

Industrial espionage of French companies[edit]

In June 2015, WikiLeaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied French companies.

Wikileaks published documents over spionage of many German federal ministries since 1990s[edit]

In July 2015, WikiLeaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied many German telefonnumbers of German federal ministries over years.

Tuizhg (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)