Talk:West Wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reversion deleted useful information

Scm83x (talk • contribs) blew away interesting details when reverting this article, details not present in any other article. I'm about to resurrect them, and await a discussion here as to whether they belong here or in a section of the White House page. 66.167.139.201 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Case for a separate West Wing article

I don't believe its a slam dunk that a West Wing article should be separate from the White House article. But here are some reasons in favor of this approach:

1. Rooms within the West Wing, such as the Oval Office and the Situation Room, have articles already.
2. Details, such as the current occupants, are interesting but belong in a separate article so as to not clutter the broader subject of the White House.
3. Access to the television series is still a click away, so in that respect its no different than a disambiguation page.

66.167.139.201 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

Having a separate article would warrant moving some details from the current section of the White House article to here, for completeness. 66.167.139.201 20:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

OK, I disagree with your approach. This is simply a laundry list of the people currently occupying the West Wing. If you want to make such a list for current events concerns, I would suggest creating an article List of current West wing occupants and put the list there. Then you should make a {{details}} template at the top of the West Wing section in the White House article. Until this is settled, I am going to revert this page back to the way it has been for a few years now . Please do not revert it again. -Scm83x 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at it in its present condition. It is in good enough shape to warrant discussion. 66.167.139.201 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

I am looking and the article is a copy of the content from the White House article plus a mostly red list of links to people who occupy the West Wing. Again, I think an article List of current West wing occupants should be created and the list should be put there. -Scm83x 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

WRT the red links...I've been unable to find it in the guidelines/policies, but it used to be a good thing to introduce links to as-yet uncreated articles. They were styled red to encourage old-timers and newcomers alike to contribute. But you're far from the first one I've encountered who seems to consider them a negative. I'll admit, given the fact we're at 1,728,389 articles, uncreated articles are getting more and more specialized and risk violating notability requirements, but I miss the days when red links were mostly a good thing... 66.167.139.201 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

• Yea, maybe that can become my new pet project, or yours, or someone else entirely. Lol. -Scm83x 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, sorry about all this. THis is a good change. I was just being a little defensive about an anon editor making massive changes with all the paranoia recently. I will fix up some of the Wikistyle in the article. Great change, and I'm sorry to bug you. Please get a user name and drop me a line when you do. I'd love to help you in any further endeavors. -Scm83x 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

(Boy, you are fast...this is the third time I've tried to get this comment in, and by the time I update it to reflect your latest comment I have to try again) Thanks for your willingness to change your mind. I've been editing anonymously for quite a while, and as Wikipedia gets a higher profile it seems that people get less and less accepting of contributions done without logging in. FWIW, I am aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and I appreciate the fact that you didn't do another reversion. As you can see by the current version, it was simple to quickly extract historical details from the White House article and produce the finer-grained detailed article you see it. IMHO, The end result looks good in the White House article, and it looks good here. My reason for a second reversion was just to boldly establish an end result which I think still looks good to readers unaware of our debate, and one that others who monitor discussions at White House and the West Wing TV show can take a look at. 66.167.139.201 21:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

I think the page looks great. The history section was what was needed. Without it, the article is just a laundry list of people. Did you add a {{main}} to the White House article? I'll go do that now, if you didn't. We should notify the White House editors that this article now contains all the same information that their article does, and that maybe they can cut back their section on it, if size is an issue on that page. Thanks. Glad to come to a consensus in a civil fashion. No hard feelings at all ;-) Thanks!-Scm83x 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! NM, you're quick on the trigger. Great work! -Scm83x 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation phrases for The West Wing and its linked articles

I've edited the disambiguation phrases at the top of both this article and the other one in this disambiguation pair. The previous wordings seemed too wordy and clumsy. They didn't flow from the title, and the first sentences of the articles ended up repeating what was in the disambiguation phrases, making the writing feel redundant and obstructing the flow of reading the article. The disambiguation page The West Wing also needs tidying up to conform to the style of disambig pages. Carcharoth 10:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)