Template talk:Panama Papers

Reduce

This template should really be pared down to items that have a defining connection to the topic. Like the BBC and Guardian are peripherally related. Perhaps Mossack Fonseca can be linked and SZ as "related", but most of the other stuff is off-topic or spurious connections.  czar 02:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only that but the "organizations" section mixes up organizations which appear in the leak with organizations which investigated the leak, which is sort of... ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: is probably right about organizations -- should be two sections imho. I think that the newspapers are important however, much more than the heads of state even. First of all, this is primarily a journalism story. Second, some of the newspapers risked a great deal to participate and are suffering retaliation. Those that have not may be less vulnerable because of all the publications involved. One of the lessons of the Panama papers imho is that stories previously reported in isolation in separate countries become much more important and likely to be acted upon if there is a global overview. Also, the really importnt mentions are usually not the heads of state but the chief judge, the head of the oil or finance ministry, the ministry of transportation, etc.

I do notice that someone took out the "list of people mentioned", which was a good move. Waaaaaay too many to list.Elinruby (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

just noticed it was @Czar: who thought the Guardian was only peripherally related, therefore adding a ping for him. There is the political story, then there is the journalism story, and this is a high-importance journalism topic. Elinruby (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The connection is tentative as a definitive trait. I don't think The Guardian belongs in Category:Panama Papers either. I'd say the paper that broke the story could be "Related" but The Guardian and the other papers who perhaps were prominent in their interpretation but no more connected to the papers themselves is not as "Related". I recommend keeping this template to items that are definitely about the Papers—subarticles and incidents with major sections that spin out of the main article, but not lists of orgs and people and newspapers implicated. Otherwise scope would be quite nebulous. My 2¢ but do as you please  czar 16:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

KRIK may be wikilinked incorrectly

needs to be verified Elinruby (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)