Talk:West Wing

message: 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)
thread_title: Reversion deleted useful information

message: 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:
# Rooms within the West Wing, such as the Oval Office and the Situation Room, have articles already.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: *Yea, maybe that can become my new pet project, or yours, or someone else entirely.  Lol.  -Scm83x 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  (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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: LOL!  NM, you're quick on the trigger.  Great work! -Scm83x 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Case for a separate West Wing article

message: 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)
thread_title: Disambiguation phrases for [[The  West Wing]] and its linked articles

message: Why is there a list of current occupants of the West Wing? This is an article about the structure, not the current administration using it. If anything, it should just be labeled "current occupants" and not reference the particular administration. (See WP:RECENT). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of occupants?

message: Should mention of the West Wing (or White House in general) technology challenges be mention in this or the White House Article? Its been reported several times now in mainstream news outlets that many Obama staffers were surprised that the White House had antiquated computers and communications technology, a few such articles mention specifically the West Wing.
I believe due to the press its getting and due to the heavy influence of technology in government and in individual lives that this is relevant enough to be mentioned, but only if we can make a coherent, wiki-standards meeting section out of it in either the West Wing article or White House article. Scryer_360 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Technological Challenges?

message: Is the reference to Obama and Jimmy Smits really necessary on a page about the West Wing?  It seems someone with a fondness for the show just decided to throw it in, however well referenced it was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.184.155 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Smits?

message: Should it be scrapped?  ----occono (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History section has been uncited for the last year.

message: Isn't a renovation going on at the West Wing? --49.145.73.216 (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renovation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on West Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110402042159/http://www.nationaljournal.com/closer-look-inside-obama-s-west-wing-20110325 to http://nationaljournal.com/closer-look-inside-obama-s-west-wing-20110325
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does it have a name, a history, noteworthy furnishings, anything similar to the Vice President's Room? Could be interesting, could be nothing. Just a suggestion.  InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Kennedy administration it was the Presidential Aide Office, occupied by Theodore Sorensen. Before the Bush Sr. years the vice president didn't work as closely with the president as they do today, and many of them didn't have a White House office. I'll see if I can dig up a source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice President's office 

message: In this edit, I applied italicization in accordance with WP:ITHAT, and removed uncited claims in accordance with WP:V; I included the edit summary .  Forty minutes later,  reverted my contribution saying, .  I've reviewed my edit again, and cannot find any changes I made that weren't explained by the edit summary.  Can anybody review this for what I may have missed?  Thanks,  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see the "uncited" part of the edit summary. That said, I think it would be better to tag than remove those passages, as the information is relevant to the evolution of operations in the West Wing. Plus be certain that the info isn't already sourced at he end of a paragraph. Just because an individual sentence is not specifically footnotes doesn't mean the material is necessarily unsourced. Sometimes it takes multiple sentences to summarize a reference and that ref is placed only once. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: reversion confusion

message: In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Wing&diff=prev&oldid=840129991 the number of floors was increased to five, to immediately be lowered to four in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Wing&diff=840130078&oldid=840129991 - but in a quick search I've not found other references to four floors, nor is it obvious where the fourth floor would be (lest it be a second level underground).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A790:B1F:0:0:0:2C2 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like there are at most three floors. This CNN article only includes floor plans of the first and second floor, with no indication of a third floor accessible from either. This article itself only describes the first floor, ground floor, and second floor. If this fourth floor does exist, there is no indication of what or where it is. ImperialSaponification (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of floors