Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The West Wing (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The West Wing (television)/SolvedIssuesArchive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of The West Wing's FA nomination's solved issues to make the FAC readable.

• Object. Lead section is too short; episodes section is empty; cast section is not even a paragraph long. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Response. The lead section is too short, and I will fix that soon. The episodes section is empty, similar to other television articles, because there is a separate article entirely about the episodes. The cast section is short because the previous cast section revealed almost all major plot elements. Instead, the cast section has been forked, and a short discussion has been included regarding the format of the cast. -Scm83x 16:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Further response. The lead section has been expanded to two paragraphs. -Scm83x 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object It's a comprehensive and well-written article; I don't actually watch the program (I've been meaning to, really, but now I'm so far behind in the story) and I still found it readable and informative. However, I do have to say that the empty sections bother me. I think the "Cast" section, in particular, would really benefit from short "introductions" of the major characters — or, at least, the current ones — along with the wikilink to the full cast article. The "Episodes" section could wikilink to the full episodes article along with either a list of the seasons and brief overviews of their major events, or a short listing of "important" episodes (either to the storyline or that received particular acclaim).

• Comments - Added a summary of the various seasons, including plot overviews and important episodes. Staxringold 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have moved the excellent plot summary (good turn-around time too) written by Stax to the list page and added a short paragraph about the style of West Wing storytelling, indicating that plot synopses may be found on the list page. -Scm83x 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Looks good (they were a little long for the main article), I'm just trying to figure out Keepsleeping's complaint of too many split-offs. Staxringold 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comments - This is a good article. However, (i) given its "significant following in foreign countries", why are the broadcast times in the US so prominent? (The second sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, i.e. virtually the first thing you read.) What about broadcast times in the UK and Japan, which are also mentioned in the lead? Or, better, leave it out or put somewhere less prominent, if it is that relevant at all. (ii) I also think more details of the cast are required, but something short of a full list. Perhaps in the infobox, which presumably lists the title-credit star characters, replacing "Alan Alda" with "Alan Alda as Senator Arnold Vinick", etc.? (iii) The virtually non-existent "Episodes" section needs a summary of the plot arc through the seasons to date. This section could be pushed down the article into the spoiler section, if required (taking the cast with it, probably). (iv) It is rather troubling that so much of the article is within spoiler warnings - can these not be removed for historic series? Do we have to have spoilers for episodes broadcast 6 years ago in case someone has not seen them? (v) Given that (AFAIK) the series has not ended yet, are we sure that this is comprehensive? We don't know how it is going to end... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, we warn people of spoilers for books written decades or even a century ago. I've never seen a single episode of this show before, by the way. Johnleemk | Talk 20:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Do we really? Gosh. Jane Austen's novels? Shakespeare's plays? The Bible? The Epic of Gilgamesh? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Response. Thanks for your comments.

Regarding spoilers: The main problem here is that it's a contemporary show that's still going on. The events of The Bible are much better known, and referenced to in general life. However, this show is not. In addition, if this article is featured on the main page, it is sure to generate many views from people with no knowledge of the show. It will not do them justice to introduce the show and then ruin everything that happens, nor will it do them justice if we place everything there is to read in spoiler tags.

(i) According to the external links, the UK's broadcasts of The West Wing have only reached season 6 at the latest. Either they are behind in updating their websites, or there is a significant delay in broadcast. Whatever the case, it is an American-produced show for an American network. I don't mean to be Ameri-centric here, but it's the reality behind the show's production.

(ii) Like you said, there's a comment about this above as well. To address both of you, I think that adding to the infobox would create far too much clutter on most web browsers. In addition, there has been discussion of expanding the "Cast" section; however, most discussion of these characters - their titles, powers, etc. - inherently contain spoilers, and I would like to try to minimize their existence, lest we create a featured article unappealing to most of the random people that will cick from the Main Page.

(iii) I think this is totally unnecessary. There is already a fork into a separate article, so there is absolutely no need to clutter this article with additional information. In addition, this simply creates more uninviting spoiler tags for the uninformed reader. Perhaps a short summary about a paragraph long will work - how many episodes, how many season, reference to the two special episodes, etc. - but, a long plot summary is totally unnecessary.

(iv) This, in itself, is an argument for the toning down of the "Cast" and "Episodes" section. The contributors to this article have worked very hard to minimize the existence of spoilers. However, they are a necessary evil; it would not do this article justice vaguely refer to generalities - that's just fluff. We have to refer to concrete examples and events, and those inherently and unavoidably contain spoilers.

(v) You're absolutely right, but that's the point of Wikipedia - easily adding content as things change. We can't block a scientific article from being a FA because we haven't solved all the contradictions and theories of science. This article is comprehensive as far as we know, and deserves FA status.

-Rebelguys2 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. (i) I still query the value of almost the very first thing a reader sees being the broadcast times in the US. (ii) I see the problem but I think the article really does need a list of the main characters. If giving their job titles, etc, would be too difficult, leave them out (like they do on the NBC website). (iii) The essence of summary style is that when a section is spun out to a new daughter article because it is too long for the parent article, the contents of the daughter article should usually be summarised back in the parent article. The story arc is the very heart of the article. (iv) Point taken. (v) Well, it seems particularly problematic in the middle of the broadcasts of season 7. Will there be a season 8? 9? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(i) I still have problems removing that while the show is still running. It'll certainly be taken out when the show comes to an end, but I think it's important, for now, because that's when and where each new episode premieres. (ii) I'm starting to see some value in doing so, and am warming up to the idea of a short list without job titles, perhaps. (iii) The problem is that the episode plots are so extensive; I still think this section would be better just describing how the episodes/seasons work in this show, and the like, and keep the plotlines to the fork. (iv) -- (v) The end of the show is speculation for now. As for problems, of course it will be problematic, but we are committed to updating this page and its forks as new details unfold. -Rebelguys2 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nixie's comment with discussion

• Object, on a number of points:

1. The cast section could be expanded a bit, so is was more like that of Arrested Development, so the readrer has at least a basic understanding of who the main characters are before being hit with the plot.
2. The season summaries would look nicer with Insert ===h3's===, and the external links would be better without them - so the chage would be about neutral on TOC length.
3. The empty section - Broadcasters and home video releases, is pointless, move the list to the see alsos, or provide a paragraph of detail.
4. How is the show critically recieved outside the US and does it rate well in other countries?
5. Does the show have a notable soundtrack? There is no information on music.

There is no official soundtrack, and I don't know if this counts, but if you asked fans and probably critics, I am sure they would say that the use of music montages in certain critical espisodes is a hallmark and major aspect of the show, eg. "Little Drummer Boy" in S1's "In Exelcis Deo" (especially!), "New York Minute" in S2's "Somebody's Going to Emergency..." "Brothers in Arms" in S2's "Two Cathedrals" (especially), "Hallelujah" and "Patriotic Song" in S3's Posse Comitatus (especially), "I don't Like Mondays" in S4 's "20 Hours in America, "Shed a little Light" in S4 's "College Kids", "Holy Night" in Season 4's "Holy Night", "Angel" (I think) in S4's "Commencement" (especially). I have forgotten the titles of ones used in S5. In S6 there's "Desire" in "King Corn". And just recently there was "Jet Airliner" in "Mommy Problem". I think the ones I tagged with especially should be mentioned, but I really don't have the time do it, at least not until more than a week from now. I'm sure another WW fan can do this justice. BTW, there's also a WW suite from Snuffy Walden, which is partly used in the pilot and is an extended version of the theme song--newsjunkie 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's about all I could find when I looked around for it. We'll see if anyone can shed some more light on this; for now, I'd like to stay with the main theme deserving a mention but a listing of songs in certain episodes non-notable enough to put in the main article. It might do justice to mention the names of these songs in the episode guide? -Rebelguys2 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

6. All images need source information and since they are all fair use, they should all have fair use rationales on the image description pages.

--nixie 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks for your comments.

1. The problem with a cast section similar to Arrested Development is that they're not the same. We can go into detail about the personality of a character, but that really doesn't say much, considering this show doesn't center on the quirky actions and personalities of characters, like in AD. Even if we just say that someone holds a certain staff position, it's a spoiler - the fact that he/she was promoted to that position, the fact that the guy before him is gone, and so on. That's why this section has to be very limited in this case.

3. That's a good idea, thanks. I'll be making the move soon.

5. There is actually no released soundtrack for this show that I've been able to find on Amazon.com, so its largely non-notable. However, the composer has gained notoriety for the main theme of the show, which is briefly noted in the "Awards" sub-section. There simply doesn't exist enough notable information, however, to give music its own section.

-Rebelguys2 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Further response.

2. The season summaries have been split off and nicely explained by Scm.

4. I'll go digging for some foreign reviews to cite.

6. Can do, gumshoe.

I'll message you once 4 and 6 are addressed to see if you'll change your vote! :) Staxringold 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• • On the characters, I was expecting something simple like, The President played by x, is married (y). The Vice President is q. His top advisors are c,d and e. It probably wouldn't be more that a pargraph, but it would help for someone who hasn't watched the show at all (like me) to interpret the following season summaries (which seem to have disappeared). To avoid spoliers potential spoliers, just preface the section by saying at the start of season one the following was true. I think that paranoia about spoliers has the potential to ruin the article- the article isn't about the show if the plot of the show is not described.--nixie 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to not adding information because it would constitute a spoiler, I personally don't think that something being a spoiler is a good reason not to put in information you would otherwise think should be included. When we reach the point where the goal of producing a full and complete article and the goal of not spoiling the enjoyment of someone who hasn't seen the whole thing come into conflict, the encyclopedic completeness goal has to win. Again speaking only personally, I don't think spoiler tags belong in an encyclopedia at all; if we do have them we shouldn't let them, or their placement, have an undue influence over an article's structure or content. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

However, I don't see anything wrong with formatting the article so that non-spoiler items like a summary of the show and it's cast appear at the top to ensure no one passes over a spoiler tag by accident. Staxringold 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. All of the information is still there, and there is still encyclopedic completeness - it's just been forked or placed elsewhere. You can still find anything you need; its just been formatted so it doesn't ruin the plot for someone who doesn't want to know.

In response to listing positions in the first season: it's an interesting idea, and certainly removes the need for a spoiler tag. My reasoning for everything else has still been this, though: the information is already there, it's just been forked. Repeating it in the main article would be redundant.

-Rebelguys2 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree: a degree of redundancy is essential. Each article stands or falls on its own, not by reference to the content of other articles. The lead should summarise the whole article, so inevitably there is some redundancy between the lead and the more detailed sections later on. Similarly, the contents of the forked articles should be summarised here. A reader may not want to read a long list of characters, or a detailed blow-by-blow explanation of the plot of each episode, but should still be able to read about the main characters and the broad jist of the plot here. -- ALoan (Talk)

I'll go ahead and create a short list of the main cast of The West Wing. As for the episodes...I'm still a little uneasy. I suppose that I'm just too huge a fan, and cringe at the thought of the injustice of cramming the entire series into a paragraph or two. ;) Whatever we decide to do to the episode section, it would probably be best to find somewhere to move it to within the spoilers section. -Rebelguys2 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tabled the main cast data. Staxringold 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Solved. This should solve the main cast issue. Gives names but not positions, other than the President, which I think is OK. Great job, Stax and Rebelguys2! -Scm83x 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. From arguments before, some may want information about the show's music. However, the only notable song is The West Wing theme, which is mentioned in the awards section. Everything else is largely non-notable. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. From arguments before, some may want information on foreign accolades or criticisms of the show. However, I feel that mention of the show's popularity in several foreign countries is all that is notable. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that the table is an ideal solution to the characters problem- I am also less likely to support the article now that there is a complete absence of plot summary. I think the plot summary for seasons 1-6 should be included. This article should not rely on subarticles to convey its content.--nixie 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nixie. I really do thank you for the amount of commenting you are putting into this FAC, but Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. The plot summaries have been judged (and rightly so, I think) to be far too much content to fit into a truly sleek article. Look at Arrested Developmen, a prime example as another American TV show FA. The split-off to the List of Episodes is the only thing in the list of episodes. I'll add a tiny synopsis of traditional episodes, but we should not include every single fact for every season/episode. Staxringold 01:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• The reader should be able to get an idea of what the show is about (I'm not talking about an episode by episode listing) without going to another article. Blackadder, Arrested Development, and Dawson's Creek all provide some level of plot information in the main article.--nixie 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• On the other hand, none of those article have a fork to another article. In addition, the Blackadder article looks cluttered, and Dawson's Creek is overly wordy. It was enough to become a Featured Article, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. -Rebelguys2 01:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response. Again, thanks for all of your input, nixie. This article has received inmeasurable improvement in just one day.

Regarding "Cast:"

Your argument is that you'd like something simple:

The President played by x, is married (y). The Vice President is q. His top advisors are c,d and e.

I think that we could implement a paragraph similar to that, and use your idea about associating these characters with their positions during the first season. Anything more would be a spoiler; we're not trying to shy from completeness, but this offers a good summary with additional information in the forked article. After all, we are pushing the generally accepted (though not necessary) limit of 32 kilobytes for normal articles. Hopefully we've reached a consensus, and the issue with the "Cast" section should be solved with this edit.

Regarding "Episodes:"

This looks like another interesting issue. ;) You argue for a plot summary, because articles should not "rely on [others] to convey its content."

The entire plot summary was part of the article several hours ago, and it was extremely long and unwieldy - rivaling the length of the rest of the article itself. The Wikipedia Guide to Writing Better Articles states that:

Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles, other than lists, should aim to be less than 32kb in size. When articles grow past this amount of readable text, they should be broken up to improve readability and ease of editing. The headed sub-section should be retained, with a concise version of what has been removed under an italicized header, such as Main article: History of Ruritania. Otherwise context is lost and the general treatment suffers.

In addition, another guide reads:

• some readers need just a quick summary (lead section)
• more people need a moderate amount of info (a set of multi-paragraph sections)
• and yet others need a lot of detail (links to full-sized separate articles)

The detail is in the fork. A moderate amount of detail should cover an outline of the presidency, which can be found in the "Presidential elections" section. As a result, we are left with the guideline calling for a quick summary underneath a fork. I'll be willing to put something there as a generality, i.e., the show follows elections, foreign policy (listing a few examples, but not outcomes), character and family issues (a few general issues, but not telling exactly who), and so on. Again, I feel that this show has been going on long enough and is extensive enough so as to make it impossible to list any single detail in a plot summary without listing dozens more. At that point, the sheer length will deserve a fork. Other details can already be found in other sections, such as "The West Wing universe," or in the forked article. In short, I think that the only viable, reasonable compromise for this section is not so much a plot summary, but describing what kind of issues these episodes will delve into.

I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

-Rebelguys2 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Added a short plot overview, LMK what you think. Staxringold 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! There's a few formatting issues (staying consistent with episodes in quotes rather than italicized), and I think we should drop Leo's name (that's a spoiler), but otherwise, it looks good for the most part, and was similar to what I was getting at. -Rebelguys2 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like the new summary. I would also like to see some kind of general summary/synopsis, that covers and notable/major events for the seasons - probably two paragraphs- something akin to the amazon editorial reviews, which give the reader a basic idea of the plot, but don't really give anything away, for example (it's a bit flowery)

Season one introduces viewers to a Nobel Prize-winning economist and unabashed intellectual president Jed Bartlet (Martin Sheen) and his key staff members, a newly elected Democratic administration trying to find its footing amidst the corridors of the White House's west wing.[[1]] Season two and thee focus on the administration in the white house with coverage of foreign relations, terrorism etc, in season 4 - reelection and so on.--nixie 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. As long as there aren't any plot details revealed, or minor ones, as the Amazon article does, we should do this. I will make the changes. -Scm83x 01:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I added the general plot summary, stating what the season covers, but revealing no plot details. I think this is sufficient. Thanks. -Scm83x 02:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)