Talk:Writers Guild of America, west

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for Sept 3.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] Creation of Article

I created very basic pages for WGAE and WGAw. Completing the history will take some research, and since these were my first new pages it took me hours just to figure out how to do the formatting, links, etc. I hope that others will assist in filling in additional information about the two guilds, using verifiable sources. The original page "WGA" had a lot of NPOV problems. I hope we can avoid that going forward. Syndicalista 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1933 founding date incorrect, that was just the date the SWG tried to get their first contract. The WGAw iteself was founded in 1954 but I think there's a direct line with the SWG predecessor of 1921. If there's any die hard 1954 people out there change it to that, but 1933 is definitely wrong. (You could argue that SWG ceased to be a social club and became a union in 1933 but I think that's splitting hairs). DirectRevelation 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation
Any idea what the average annual income is for WGA members? It seems odd that there is an industrial union for a bunch of guys who sit around in "writer labs" bouncing superballs and coming up with new ideas. Some of them probably spend more time in Starbucks than in the office, especially given the prevalance of Reality TV these days. Isn't the whole idea of Reality TV that no one writes anything and it is all supposed to be spontaneous? Am I missing something here? Is the fear that Seven Sister and Ivy League English majors won't have a cushy job set up for them on graduating? Oh well, rant over.Ndriley97 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few professions have unions. Anyway, the talk pages are for the discussions of articles, not for discussing the subjects. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Then, my comment on the article is that there should be a Criticism section. I will draft one with factual references to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndriley97 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Strike

I created a separate section for the 2007 Strike. After it's settled, this should probably be demoted back into the history section. DirectRevelation 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Removed Current Event tag from 2007 strike section. There is now a separate article on that and this article is really about an organization involved with a current event.DirectRevelation 15:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

[edit] "W" versus "w"

Nightstallion,

You might assume that a group of writers knows some basic concepts about English but that is sadly not the case. The official name of this group is "Writers Group of America, west" [sic]. My style books say that compass directions do NOT need to be capitalized unless they are part of a formal noun. So it's "West Virginia" with a capital "W" but "Go west, young man" with a lower case "w". Of course the name of this group SHOULD be "West" since it's a formal noun but it's not. Here is a link to their basic brochure about the organization: http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/fyiwho.pdf

If you look on the first page of the brochure, they use all caps in the whole name but use small caps for "west" but this is only in their letterhead. Look at the beginning of the second page on that link. They use "Writers Guild of America, west" and "WGAw" in all their text about themselves. The WGA East does not do this nonsense.

A friend of mine at one of the payroll services thinks the oddity is intentional because royalties can always be easily identified because the acronyms look obviously different: WGAE versus WGAw. Whatever the motivation is, I agree that mis-punctuation is stupid but it's similar to PriceWaterhouseCooper or the iPhone, neither of whose punctuation are corrected within Wikipedia. This is not the only complaint I have about their names:

  • "Writers" is possessive so it should be "Writers' Guild of America, west" with an apostrophe. They have a comma in their name so they don't seem opposed to punctuation but, if they were, it could be "Writing Guild of America, west"
  • They call their joint awards program the "Writers Guild [singular] of America Awards" which leads people to the false assumption that something called the "Writers Guild of America" must exist. That's why we have a Wikipedia article on a fictitious organization. They should have called it the "Writers Guilds [plural] of America Awards".

DirectRevelation 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

But they are not as consistent as that. Take the strike notices [1] and [2] or even the copyright notice at the bottom of their web page http://www.wga.org/ --Rumping 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Rumping, your examples are valid. I would like to hope that the organization would capitalize the W but I think some of the volunteers working during the strike are accidentally using correct punctuation. The WGAw is quite consistent in their printed documents.DirectRevelation 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevalation
At best, even the WGAw is wildly inconsistent. Some of the press releases carefully uncapitalize the W, but most of the pages on their site seem to capitalize it, per Googling (or should I say googling?). This is probably a bit of corporate-level "branding" that is not wholly bought into by all staff and members. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections

Unlike the WGAE, the WGAW is attempting major expansion of jurisdiction and membership. I'm adding new sections here on organizing drives in Animation, Reality television, and music writers. I'm not sure if this should be 1 or 3 sections though. Once I finish adding these items, I would appreciate feedback on how to organize this article.DirectRevelation 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WGA logo.png

Image:WGA logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Sic"

I am wondering why there are not one, but two, "sic" designations in the very first line of the article (that is, within the bolded name of the organization)? I think that it is sloppy, confusing, and incorrect. One -- most people don't know what it means. So, to come upon it thrown in so seemingly haphazardly in the first few words of the article can be baffling to a reader. Two -- at the very least, it deserves a wiki-link or a wiktionary link ... to aid the befuddled reader. Three -- "sic" identifies a mistake or error on the part of the author/writer. Can't we all agree that the organization has very deliberately and intentionally selected their own name ... which, of course, they are free to do ... free of any punctuation conventions ...? I do not believe that the punctuation of the organization's name is a mistake at all, and thus no "sic" (much less, two "sic"s) warranted. Even if there is some subtle nuance to the use of "sic", it is a disservice to the reader in this case. Perhaps, somewhere in the article, someone can point out the "unexpected" nature of the title ... and, perhaps, even explain its roots. I thought I would post here before I went in and deleted both of those introductory "sic"s. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I suspect some wag deliberately chose this curious spelling in order to draw attention to themselves, by eliciting these very questions from their target group - the very people who would tend to spot such apparent errors. You're right - they can name their organisation and spell it any way they please, and if it's a registered corporation, maybe this is the only legally correct way of referring to it. "Writers Guild of America" might trip up us pedants who prefer "Writers' Guild .." - but apostrophes are often ignored in titles, place names etc, so this is acceptable usage. Take "Smiths Used Cars" - does this business belong to one Smith or more than one? We don't know and probably don't really care. About the "[sic]"s - I would certainly remove them from the lead paragraph. In some context where you're discussing various similar organisations, and all the others use the apostrophised word writers', but this one doesn't, you might use "sic" to ensure the readers don't think you've made a typo. In this article, we're better off using an in-text comment thingamy (<!...>) that alerts editors not to correct the spelling but doesn't show up in the article proper. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. Late thought. Using "sic" in a lead para might make Wikipedia seem a little pompous. The perception could be that Wikipedia is saying "We don't think they should spell their name that way, but unfortunately they do, so we have to comply". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with most / much of what you have said. I do think that, within this article, it should perhaps be explained at least a little. That is, the "unexpected" appearance of glaring "errors" in the title of a group of -- of all things -- writers. It is indeed odd and curious that writers themselves (agreeing as a group, no less) would deliberately inject writing errors into their title. I assume there is some amusing -- or perhaps practical -- reason. I think the article should detail this ... and there are better ways to do so, other than throwing in a simple "sic" (or two). I will contact the Guild at some point and dig around and see what this is all about. If only there were 25 hours in a day. But, I will do some digging around, at some point. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
A sic is for the reader, to reassure him that what he sees is indeed right when he is given reason to think it might not be. It literally means "thus". No reassurance was needed in the first sentence of this article (if the organization really uses that ridiculous way of referring to themselves). The Guild are free to not use the apostrophe, as pointed out above, and the lowercase "west" is covered in the abbreviation immediately following in which the final "w" is lowercased, too. I do, however, feel a certain brotherly feeling toward whoever sicked [sic] these jokers in the first place; they are asking for it. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is so much information being deleted from the History?

It seems this Wiki has gotten a lot smaller since I last checked on it. Why has so much of the WGA history been deleted? It should be getting bigger, not smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlyman (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Once again, this page is being tinkered in a way that seems close to vandalism. WGAw history is being cut for no obvious reason other than possibly to purge the page of useful information. Parts of the Guild history that involved a voting scandal and re-election have been cut. Also, the information the that WGA collects moneys from foreign levies for all US writers (information that is valuable for all writers to know) has been deleted. I'd just restore it but I'm not real experienced with editing and I don't want to just go back and forth with someone. Can the person who made the cuts explain why? Or can someone impartial who knows more about Wik editing take a look and restore some stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlyman (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find the edit summaries by clicking on the "history" links of pages. The reason given for the last 2 edits was that unsourced info was removed per wp:v and wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-06t13:01z