Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of Interest

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)

: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)

::According to WP:SPLIT the 45,601 bytes size means it "may need to be divided"? Softlemonades (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

:::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)

:::>50K is the figure in WP:SPLIT. And that refers to readable prose size which according to [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Cryptome] 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)

::::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.

::::For Wikipedia:RPS - my bad. Softlemonades (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::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)