This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Proposing splitting the article into Cryptome and History of Cryptome. The History section is a long list thats organized differently and doesnt fit the rest of the article. It would fit and grow better as its own article and a short summary on the main article. Softlemonades (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see the point. Better wait for the article to grow first and then split it if it does actually grow to a size that looks like it should split. Currently the size alone would not justify a split according to WP:SPLIT. NadVolum (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SPLIT the 45,601 bytes size means it "may need to be divided"? Softlemonades (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could just rewrite it, because thats the other thing. Its not just size. Its a giant list that doesnt fit with the rest of the article. If it was rewritten witohut the list, I think itd fit a lot better. But now its just a huge list in the middle of a regular article. You know? Softlemonades (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
>50K is the figure in WP:SPLIT. And that refers to readable prose size which according to [1] is 9365 characters. See WP:RPS about that. It just is not at a size where splitting is advised. What gave you the idea that it looked too big for a single article? DO you really consider a list with 18 elements with a ouple of lines each to be 'giant'? Enormous amounts of Wikipedia would need rewiting if that was taken as a standard! NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im not talking about enormous amounts of Wikipedia, just this one. You dont have to talk about the rest of Wikipedia lol.
I dont think its a good list or that it fits. Obviously I thought it should be split or rewritten. Obviously you disagree. Itll stay the way it is unless someone else comes in and says it should change.
Thanks. It is just a guideline but I'm pretty certain it is a reasonable one in this case. Sometimes an article may go over the limits but because something in it is current it would be a bad idea to try splitting till things come to a natural break point for instance. Or for an article like Donald Trump it already has loads of subarticles and it is hard to see how to divide it down more - I guess it will require some expert editor after he is no longer relevant. NadVolum (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
