Talk:WikiLeaks Party

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

---

WikiLeaks Political Party → WikiLeaks Party – Consistency of title with reference to it in the article. TimonRose (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Speedy move. This seems fairly obvious, and a quick Google search has only Wikipedia and descriptive terms for the current title. In fact this is so uncontroversial I'd suggest a bold move forthwith. Frickeg (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

That was a bad move

The page has just been moved from The Wikileaks Party to Wikileaks Party.

At the AEC website it tells me that "The" is absolutely, definitely part of the name.

Tried to move it back myself but got an error page that was beyond me at this time of the morning.

But it must be moved back to The Wikileaks Party, because that's what it's called. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Thanks to The Drover's Wife. (Now, we wouldn't leave the The off that name, would we?) But if this thread sticks around for a while it will hopefully inform others who might want to make the wrong assumption. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Was moved again without discussion, following which I had to move it now back to "The Wikileaks Party", which is the official name according to the party's own constitution and how it is registered at the AEC. --ELEKHH^T 07:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back again, and thanks for linking to the constitution. Today somebody changed almost all instances of Wikileaks to WikiLeaks, with a capital L in the middle. That's a reasonable edit, because the party's website uses that form a lot. However, the constitution doesn't, at all. Not sure where to go here, but because the change was made today, it's obvious somebody cares. Is the constitution our major guiding source here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the only guide, but the official name is the safest as long literature & media coverage of the party is limited, and the party's usage is inconsistent (logo is all upper case, constitution is lower-case). The official form registered at the AEC will remain a basis for some media reporting. --ELEKHH^T 08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Rothorpe, the user that changed Wikileaks to WikiLeaks in the article, is also the user that requested the most recent move. See [1]. I left him a message on his talk page inviting him to join the discussion here. ~XapApp(Talk·Contribs) 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem is that it shouldn't have been a technical move, but a Requested move. We already had six moves in five months: WikiLeaks Political Party > WikiLeaks Party > The Wikileaks Party > WikiLeaks Party > The Wikileaks Party > WikiLeaks Party > The Wikileaks Party. Any further move should be based on consensus here. --ELEKHH^T 08:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for putting my foot in this mess. After which I came here to the talk page and saw what I'd done. Which was because of the party literature. There needs to be a notice on the markup page. I think I'd vote for 'WikiLeaks Party', as the CamelCase form seems usual in the literature and the logo has no 'The', but I don't much mind. Rothorpe (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To the IP removing Minor Party Alliance

Full list of parties in Minor Party Alliance: Senator Online | Australian Voice Party | Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party | Family First | Stable Population Party | Party for Freedom | Australia First Party | Sex Party | WikiLeaks | Animal Justice Party | Stop CSG Party | Help End Marijuana Prohibition [HEMP] Party | Voluntary Euthanasia Party | Single Parents Party | Building Australia Party | Natural Medicine Party | Australian Independents Party | Climate Sceptics Party | Shooters and Fishers Party | One Nation | Australian Democrats (Darren Churchill) | Bullet Train for Australia Party | Bank Reform Party[2]. This article states "The party has been involved in Glenn Druery's Minor Party Alliance" which is in no way untrue. If the IP or others wish to expand on the issues (acrimony) between the MPA and WikiLeaks, feel free to do so using reliable sources such as the ones i've used. Timeshift (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Wikileaks Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120701034145/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2012/06/19/wikileaks_founder_seeks_asylum_at_ecuador_embassy/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2012/06/19/wikileaks_founder_seeks_asylum_at_ecuador_embassy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The Wikileaks Party → WikiLeaks Party – Request move over a redirect. Title should conform to capitalization of "L" as used throughout official website of the WikiLeaks Party, and omit "The" for same reason. KalHolmann (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• But... the same website shows that they don't cap "the", indicating that it's not really a part of the name. So probably WikiLeaks Party would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. However, request move over a redirect is still required, since there is already a WikiLeaks Party page. KalHolmann (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elimination of Controversy Section

See WP:CSECTION. The Controversy section should be merged with the rest of the article. It is absurd to have two subsections dealing with the 2013 election. Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

i made the section and am fine with that. it should be easy to merge it, this diff shows how it was split https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1138141824

i expanded it some so please move things, dont revert Softlemonades (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have technical problems with moving large slabs of text at the moment, or I would do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

ok did it Softlemonades (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing needed

There are large gaps in the narrative. For example, the outcome of the 2014 election in WA and the exact reasons why the party was deregistered. The article seems to be written on the basis of assumed knowledge, e.g., the fact that Assange was in the Ecuadorian embassy is hardly mentioned. Restructuring is needed e.g. the 2013 election section should not be a subsection of Formation! Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to be written on the basis of assumed knowledge we should add some background in Formation

e.g. the 2013 election section should not be a subsection of Formation! yeah that confused me Softlemonades (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the party was formed to fight the 2013 election, but still it is confusing. We should introduce the names of candidates at the start of the 2013 election section, rather than the end, and then follow up with how many votes they got. I introduced the fact that Assange was in the embassy in a recent edit, but this is really fundamental to the story of the party. Some of the material is a bit questionable. For example, we say that party headquarters was in Melbourne, but it is pretty clear that Assange in London was attempting to control the party. Another gap is about deregistration. We don't say in the body of the article that this was about low membership. We mention the number of landlines, but this is a bit cryptic. Assumed knowledge yet again.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

edited it, is that better? Softlemonades (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's much better.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)