Talk:The West Wing/Archive 3

Detractors?
"The West Wing is sometimes called The Left Wing by detractors...". Is that NPOW? English is only my third language but isn´t detractor a derogatory term when used that way?--194.255.112.30 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it is probabliy fine. One criticism, if it is a criticism, probably just something to note, is the frequent use of straw man arguments. The show makes it seem that there is a debate going on, when really it is designed so one side can win, usually quite cleverly or spectacularly. - 58.161.224.123 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A straw man argument is one where the arguer mischaracterizes the opponent's argument such that it becomes easy to refute. The West Wing doesn't do that and that's not why some choose to call it "The Left Wing." What the show tends to do is to set up the debate and then argue for the liberal/progressive side of the issue (although it often argues for the moderate/centrist position). So, in doing that, the show may tend to give more airtime to the liberal side of the issue. However, it doesn't distort the conservative point of view. --Hnsampat 05:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Aaron Sorkin
I have started a peer review of the Aaron Sorkin article. I would really appreciate any input to better the article! -BiancaOfHell 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the Aaron Sorkin article is at FAC, here Featured_article_candidates/Aaron_Sorkin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BiancaOfHell (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Use of copyrighted photos
Per the Aaron Sorkin article, the images used here are copyrighted, and not used under fair use. It seems that a good faith effort to use them under fair use has been explained, but they are not used under fair use. Images that are copyright violations are supposed to be speedy deleted. As this is a trend that will affect Wikipedia more widely in the future, (enforcement of fair-use properly, elimination of copyrighted images) it is best to discuss and look for alternatives. Inability to find free images does not supersede the rights of the copyright owner.

For example, take the first image "Image:TheWestWing.JPG". A good faith effort has been given to use it under fair-use, it seems:
 * 1) The screenshot is of lower resolution and quality than the original video (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
 * 2) No free or public domain images have been located for this content.
 * 3) The screenshot does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the show or DVDs in any way.
 * 4) The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the show. Its inclusion in the article is important as an example of a dramatic feature specifically detailed in the article.
 * 5) The screenshot is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original show or DVD in any way.

All of these being important factors when being taken to court. Notice the imbedded copyright warning though:

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots


 * for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
 * the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Is this image used for "critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents?" On the Aaron Sorkin article, the answer would be no, as the topic of the article is Sorkin. On this article, some of these may possibly qualify as needed for critical commentary on the program and its contents. On other places, this would not be true.

Could the editors who have worked to develop this excellent article qualify each of these images to insure that the screenshot is used precisely in the context required to meet fair use, or remove the images?

Atom 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List of The West Wing deaths‎ is up for deletion
This article is a list of twenty (or so) named characters of the show who died in various episodes, and it's cross-linked to some other articles about The West Wing. If you have an opinion on whether the article should be kept you can join in the AfD debate. EdJohnston 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

List of The West Wing episodes
Per WP:EPISODE, "If the articles are very short, consider merging them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." What are your thoughts about merging TWW episodes into articles by season? — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of the articles are very short, it's true. But some aren't (for example In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part I) and it would be great if other episodes could have this much information on them, and I don't see why that can't happen. I personally would rather see the short articles expanded, than for them all to be merged into season articles. ConDem Talk 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I just fear that attempting to expand them, we'll just end up with bloated trivia, quotes, and goofs sections - anything else would be borderline (or blatant) original research. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already a plot summary of each season at List of The West Wing episodes, with smaller summaries for episodes. If no more verifiable information can be added to each article, it does seem silly to have them all, it's true. Why not just AfD them, apart from, perhaps, the award-winning episodes, and others that are important outside of the West Wing, and expand these ones? A merge wouldn't be that useful, since we already have the plot summaries, and the quotes don't really belong here.  ConDem Talk 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to be able to do is introduce fair use screen captures for each of the episodes and expand a bit on what's listed on the episodes list article - things like guest appearances, plot arcs within a season, highlighting special episodes, etc. We could certainly keep the award-winning episodes as stand-alones as well and just use a "See also" in the season articles for them. We wouldn't necessarily need to AfD them, at least initially - we could just do redirects to the individual season articles. I'll get started on the structure for the season articles this weekend to give you a better idea of what I'm envisioning (mainly to show how it'll be more than a replication of List of The West Wing episodes. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. In that case, it's probably a good idea to set up season articles, as you suggested. ConDem Talk 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: The link in paragraph 3 discusses the popularity of high-income viewers of the show in later years, but the article is written in October of 2002, early in the fourth season. Is this still considered reliable for the last few seasons?

Section rmvd
I have removed the following section:
 * The perceived switch of emphasis from Sorkin's dialogue-centric style of writing to Wells' focus on plot-driven drama angered some of the show's fan base. Some disliked the switch so passionately that they actively campaigned for the series to be cancelled, citing Sorkin's departure as the sole cause of its "decline". However, many viewers continued to tune into The West Wing regularly, with the show consistently averaging eight million viewers a week at the close of its run.

My objection is the use of weasel words - e.g "some of the show's fan base. Some disliked.." is totally unacceptable. The reference given "dontsaveourshow.org" suggests blatant POV. Mark83 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?
I've noticed that a lot of the episode summaries are the same, verbatim, as the ones on The West Wing Episode Guide. See, e.g. The Long Goodbye compared to the WWEG page. This could be legit if the author is the same, there is no copyright, or the copyright has been given up. I just wanted to check though, does anybody know anything about this? Lampman 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the "The West Wing Episode Guide," that summary for "The Long Goodbye" is actually from TVGuide.com. So, it seems to me that this is a clear-cut copyright violation. Thank you for finding it. The episode summary there is going to have to be either completely rewritten or deleted. (Ditto for any other copyvio summaries that are found.) --Hnsampat 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, we've got a big job cut out for us then, it seems to be quite a few. The culprit seems to be User:MZMcBride, I'll get in touch. Lampman 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems it wasn't MZMcBride who originally did the copyvio. He simply moved the synopses from the list of episodes into the seperate episode articles, and then shortened the synopses in the list. Apparently the original copyvio synopses - in the list - were there from the very start, and were put there by J@ffa. Someone called Schissel voiced his concerns on J@ffa's talk page early on, but nothing further happened. Anyway, they will all have to be changed now. Lampman 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed they will. Nice job investigating this! --Hnsampat 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction noticeboard
A new noticeboard, Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA drive
I've recently been trying to get some articles up to GA status. I've started with An Khe and Full Disclosure. As a model I've used The Simpsons articles (see Style guide), where several have already made it to GA - and even FA - status. I hope I've set a good standard, and if anyone wants to contribute, I think it will be easier now that there's some sort of a norm. Lampman 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)