This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wickr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Could someone reassess this page? I feel uncomfortable doing it myself since I expanded it so much. I believe both its quality and importance ratings are now higher. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There should be a section for discussing splitting it, so in the absence of one, this is it:
Closed -- Dodi 8238 ( talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through most of the article and reduced it significantly so that it's easier to read, isn't 90% quotes, and is mostly-relevant information. I haven't double-checked any of the sources, and my brain started to melt before I could do the sections Users and Personnel. I was really tempted to put in a section called "vague and grandiose statements by the founders" but I felt that would probably undermine my work somewhat. So anyway, if anyone wants to tackle the remaining over-quotey sections, go for it. Cassian ( talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! So I wanted to start a discussion here if those two new editors still feel the page should have significant content removed. While Im sure they had good intentions, sourced information like that can't just be taken down. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What SilverCal10 did was that he took the time to go through each section and remove what's irrelevant. Had he given a summary of changes, none of this discussion would have ever arose. Since he is a new editor, maybe his mistake can be overlooked, and his contribution of having the patience to go through the article and edit it --which none of us have-- be recognized. I suggest the content removed by SilverCal10 remain removed. RedBookCamel ( talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I work for Wickr. I have followed the discussion above about the length and scope of the article. I agree that a more concise and focused version of the article would better serve Wikipedia's readers. Along with my colleagues, I have drafted a version of the article which I believe more closely aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I hope other editors will review it and consider replacing the current version of the article. See here: User:Hjd555/sandbox
Please note, I am not arguing that the article needs to stay this short; but I believe our draft will provide a better foundation for improving the article going forward, than the current version. I look forward to any improvements other Wikipedians wish to make (either before or after publishing this draft). - Hjd555 ( talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I have implemented the changes heretofore discussed. - Hjd555 ( talk) 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wickr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Could someone reassess this page? I feel uncomfortable doing it myself since I expanded it so much. I believe both its quality and importance ratings are now higher. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There should be a section for discussing splitting it, so in the absence of one, this is it:
Closed -- Dodi 8238 ( talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through most of the article and reduced it significantly so that it's easier to read, isn't 90% quotes, and is mostly-relevant information. I haven't double-checked any of the sources, and my brain started to melt before I could do the sections Users and Personnel. I was really tempted to put in a section called "vague and grandiose statements by the founders" but I felt that would probably undermine my work somewhat. So anyway, if anyone wants to tackle the remaining over-quotey sections, go for it. Cassian ( talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! So I wanted to start a discussion here if those two new editors still feel the page should have significant content removed. While Im sure they had good intentions, sourced information like that can't just be taken down. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What SilverCal10 did was that he took the time to go through each section and remove what's irrelevant. Had he given a summary of changes, none of this discussion would have ever arose. Since he is a new editor, maybe his mistake can be overlooked, and his contribution of having the patience to go through the article and edit it --which none of us have-- be recognized. I suggest the content removed by SilverCal10 remain removed. RedBookCamel ( talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I work for Wickr. I have followed the discussion above about the length and scope of the article. I agree that a more concise and focused version of the article would better serve Wikipedia's readers. Along with my colleagues, I have drafted a version of the article which I believe more closely aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I hope other editors will review it and consider replacing the current version of the article. See here: User:Hjd555/sandbox
Please note, I am not arguing that the article needs to stay this short; but I believe our draft will provide a better foundation for improving the article going forward, than the current version. I look forward to any improvements other Wikipedians wish to make (either before or after publishing this draft). - Hjd555 ( talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I have implemented the changes heretofore discussed. - Hjd555 ( talk) 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)