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)

South Park[edit]

Concerning User:AndyTheGrump edit. South Park is the significant image of the popular culture and covers many important topics. As a funny serial is trivial, but talks about important things. I think this section should be restored, maybe in more NPOV shape, if some users consider it trivial. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a source that discusses Wikileaks, and suggests that the South Park episode is in any way relevant. If a source can't be found, it is self-evidently of no significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur, and encourage finding discussion relating the two in an RS. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Snowden and Wikileaks: FP analsysis of Snowden becoming more well known[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Submissions form/chat down. How long? Still publishing?[edit]

I was just curious what the submission experience would be like, and noticed that the site is not accepting submissions. It doesn't say how long this has been the case. I think this would be noteworthy and I am curious myself[1]

NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future.

-- What is Wikileaks without a submission process after all? (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Is this article supposed to use British or Australian English? The editnotice says British, but the template at the top of this page says Australian. Which is it? jcgoble3 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that, in practical terms as far as this article is concerned, there isn't really much difference (what differences there are between the two are mostly minor variations in spelling) - though WP:ENGVAR would seem to suggest that since Wikileaks originated in Australia, we should use Australian English where there are any differences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. From a Wikipedia perspective, there is almost no difference between British and Australian English. In my experience, the differences are mainly the accent, and the use of slang, which don't transfer to the Wikipedia environment. Wikipedians of all nationalities try to avoid using regional slang in order to be understood, and frankly it seems uncool. I'm Australian, but you wouldn't know that from reading my posts, and I always try to use British spelling (all my ancestors come from the British Isles, and my father was born in Wales). Most Australians tend to use British spelling. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:53, 17 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)