Talk:The West Wing/Archive 2

message: I am saying very tentatively that I would like to put this article up for peer review so that it can begin the long road to Featured Article status.  There are a lot of issues for those of us who edit the page regularly before we submit the article to review by the entire community.  Let's start getting serious about the issues in this article. The West Wing is definitely capable of reaching FA status.  Let's get started today. - Scm83x 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I don't believe that I have ever even edited this page, it's nice to see one of my favorite TV shows and watched articles to make it to the front page.  Congrats, everybody. RPH 06:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This article has not been on the main page yet.  It became a featured article, I believe, on December 14th. — Scm83x talk  03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I just wanted to say that, having visited this article numerous times before when it was relatively bare bones, it is now one of the BEST I have EVER read on Wikipedia.  Kudos to everyone who contributed! --IRelayer 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article! 

message: can someone tell me when/if this article was featured? thankz, skizzno logic3 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has not been on the main page yet.  It became a featured article, I believe, on December 14th. — Scm83x talk  03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a lil late... 

message: ===What is "the west wing"?===
The West Wing is the part of the building housing the President's Oval Office and the offices of his political staff.
Removed the above. Who keeps putting it in? The WW is not part of the building housing the POTUS's oval office, etc, it is the building. It is a separate administrative office building attached to the White House, erected in the early 20th century and into which the President's administrative staff were moved. Since then, the numbers of staff have rocketed to such an extent that many are now based in the Old Executive Office building nearby and in nooks and crannies in the actual White House. But the White House is quite clear in its description of the WW as a separate administrative building joined to the White House. The White House proper is a national monument, not a functioning governmental building. It consists of the original building, now used almost exclusively for head of state ceremonial and symbolic functions, and the modern residence built into the old roof space when the original White House was demolished and rebuilt in the 1940s and 1950s (Under Truman it was discovered that the building was in imminent danger of collapse; he joked that he was advised to walk very slowly out and not to slam the door! The interior furnishings and decoration were removed and then the building demolished, leaving only the four outer walls. A replica was then built inside the outer walls, largely made of concrete, and most of the original furnishings and decor grafted onto the new building, with a new presidential 'residence' created by adding a partial new floor on the top behind the parapet, with the incorporation of what had been old servants rooms. 10 Downing Street underwent a similar process of demolition and rebuild in the early 1960s.) Governmental functions for the most part are focused in the WW, notably in the modern Oval Office and what used to be the original Oval Office but is now the Roosevelt Room. In effect the White House fulfils the functions played in Britain by Buckingham Palace (ceremonial, head of state), while the West Wing is the US version of Downing Street, where actual government takes place. FearÉIREANN 18:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Real" West Wing

message: The West Wing is the part of the building housing the President's Oval Office and the offices of his political staff.
Removed the above. Who keeps putting it in? The WW is not part of the building housing the POTUS's oval office, etc, it is the building. It is a separate administrative office building attached to the White House, erected in the early 20th century and into which the President's administrative staff were moved. Since then, the numbers of staff have rocketed to such an extent that many are now based in the Old Executive Office building nearby and in nooks and crannies in the actual White House. But the White House is quite clear in its description of the WW as a separate administrative building joined to the White House. The White House proper is a national monument, not a functioning governmental building. It consists of the original building, now used almost exclusively for head of state ceremonial and symbolic functions, and the modern residence built into the old roof space when the original White House was demolished and rebuilt in the 1940s and 1950s (Under Truman it was discovered that the building was in imminent danger of collapse; he joked that he was advised to walk very slowly out and not to slam the door! The interior furnishings and decoration were removed and then the building demolished, leaving only the four outer walls. A replica was then built inside the outer walls, largely made of concrete, and most of the original furnishings and decor grafted onto the new building, with a new presidential 'residence' created by adding a partial new floor on the top behind the parapet, with the incorporation of what had been old servants rooms. 10 Downing Street underwent a similar process of demolition and rebuild in the early 1960s.) Governmental functions for the most part are focused in the WW, notably in the modern Oval Office and what used to be the original Oval Office but is now the Roosevelt Room. In effect the White House fulfils the functions played in Britain by Buckingham Palace (ceremonial, head of state), while the West Wing is the US version of Downing Street, where actual government takes place. FearÉIREANN 18:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: What is "the west wing"?

message: ===="(television)"?====
The disambiguation page at The West Wing is dreadfully short, and I think it would be more convenient for everyone if we just added a This is for the television series; for the actual building see White House at the top of the article, deleted the disambig page and moved this article there. LeoDV 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguity

message: The disambiguation page at The West Wing is dreadfully short, and I think it would be more convenient for everyone if we just added a This is for the television series; for the actual building see White House at the top of the article, deleted the disambig page and moved this article there. LeoDV 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "(television)"?

message: At Talk:The West Wing I began a discussion about whether that article should focus on the West Wing of the White House, or revert to its state a day or two ago when it was a disambiguation page which redirected people to either a section of the White House article or here.  Please consider participating in that discussion.  Thanks.  66.167.139.201 20:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on disambiguation vs separate 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 10:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation phrases for [[The  West Wing]] and its linked articles 

message: Someone should put in a TV show template box. Benw 06:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Template 

message: First, this articles length has become unwieldy at times.  I think the most unnecessary portion of the article is the first run and home video release portion.  Perhaps we should create a fork?  - Scm83x 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork for first runs and video releases 

message: I wouldn't say that I agree with the movement of the spoiler tags.  The character list also lists the jobs, which are spoilers (as the jobs change throughout the show).  The show evolution section mentions Rob Lowe departure, a spoiler.  Also, TWW universe section contains spoilers and so does all of the presidential election section.  I am RVing these changes until we can doscuss on talk.  I don't want people to have the show ruined for them because of a misplaced spoiler tag. -Scm83x 10:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The spoiler tags did need to be moved so that this article can go on to FA status soon.  I changed the character list to a "cast" section and referred the section to the List of characters on The West Wing page, which contains the exact same information, and much much more.  Snipping the words "in the fourth season" from the "show evolution" section, I believe, made that not a spoiler anymore.  I shuffled a bit more to move the spoiler tag all the way to halfway through the page. Hopefully this helps! -Scm83x 22:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an improvement, but much of this article is still considered a spoiler.  Unfortunately, I can't find any Wikipedia guidance on what constitutes a spoiler, so all I can ask is that you consider what movie critics say and don't say about a film's plot and use that as an example of what constitutes a spoiler here.  And if you are interested in the broader topic of how significant a plot development has to be in a TV series to reach the level of a spoiler, consider contributing to this thread at the talk page for Policies and guidelines... 66.167.253.58 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tags 

message: It seems to me that it would be a good idea to include the link to the List of The West Wing episodes in the 'See Also' category at the end of the article as well as in the 'plot' section. Casual browsers are going to check 'see also' for episode guides and suchlike because that's where they're conventionally put in articles of this kind.  As it currently is people can only find the episode guide when they decide to read the whole article or if they do a seperate search for the episode guide article within Wikipedia. Given that the episode guide is linked to twice in the short 'plot' section, adding it to end of the article along with the other pertinent links would seem far from redundant. MagicBez 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Also is to contain non-redundant links.  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other WikiSpace articles.  We could look into making the existing link bold. Rlove 15:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we're solely interested in avoiding redundancy then why is the list linked twice in one short section of the article? Given the size of the article I think that a repeat of the link in the links section at the bottom is entirely warranted. Wikipeida is ultimately a reference resource, and as such, we should make key information as easy to find as possible (within reason). Given how popular episode guides are it seems counter-intuitive to have the link to it buried in the main text and not repeat it where people are accustomed to looking for such links in other TV-Show related articles. I just don't see what harm it does to have the link repeated in an obvious place for it to be. As I said before, putting a link there would be far from redundant, in fact it would be useful, sensible and practical. MagicBez 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it, if a user is interested in episodes and the plot they will go to the subsection "plot" and look there, or perform a CTRL-F with "episodes" as the term.  This argument isn't really about this article; it is about the WP:MoS.  This argument doesn't belong here, it belongs there.  And truly, if a user wants epguide information, they should head to an external link, because our epguide is paltry compared to others on the web. -Scm83x 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree 100% with Scm83x.  But answering the previous reply: Maybe the second link under Plot should be removed, too.  That is unrelated to the fact that the WP:MoS says See Also is for related but unreferenced items.  It is things to also see, not a refresh of things already linked.  I think this issue is stems from the fact that you had a hard time finding the episode link yourself, which is fine, but a simple search on 'episodes' would have sufficed. Rlove 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Making the Article a bit more User Friendly

message: Would anyone object to implementation of a different referencing style? I would like to switch to the ref-tag, as per timeline of evolution. An advantage would be that the numbering would automatically be correct. -- Ec5618 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I take silence as approval? -- Ec5618 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had actually been planning to do this for a while.  I'll take care of it shortly. — Scm83x talk  19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. -- Ec5618 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref-tag

message: Why is there a section titled "Film criticism"? This is a television production. And the Emmy's are awared by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, not "the film community." Futher, the paragraph about criticsm about the show's "unrealistic optimism" has nothing to do with film criticism, film theory, film asthetics, etc. Perhaps this section should be renamed/worded as "Critical reaction" or something like that. --mtz206 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my book, 'Film criticism' is an inappropriate title. 1) Any reasonable person will look at a section so titled and immediatey be confused as this is not a film, it is a TV show.  2) Webster defines criticism in two different ways, the first and most commonly used definition for criticism is "to find fault with" and has synonyms such as condemn, denounce, bemoan, etc.  The second definition is 'to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly.'  The latter is less commonly used and is not a generally known definition of the word.  Ergo, we're left with the user having two misconceptions 1) that they are reading about a film, as opposed to a television show and 2) that the text following contains denouncements or negative feedback on the film (show).  Neither is true.  It is a section about the techniques used in taping the show.  No negative information is contained therein which would lead said reasonable person to label it criticism.    The heading I added was wholly appropriate, yet was changed by another user back to the original misleading heading. I changed again and was reverted again.  If changed again I'll post on the users talk page and direct for discussion here. 74.132.172.179 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film criticism? 

message: I am removing a bad link to the following web page:
http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/706alsmith.htm
That is fine; I don't think it needs to be mentioned on this page.  I went ahead and remove the text of the link, too -- aside from the now-lack of link, we should not do inline citations like that.  Nor should a spoiler website, with a leak of the teleplay, act as a reference and now that the episode aired, it needs no justification.  This article is rapidly sounding like a fansite, not an encyclopedia entry. Rlove 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: The following item listed in "External links" does not directly provide the cited information:
* Television Without Pity Discussion thought to be the inspiration for lemonlyman.com storyline. Aaron Sorkin posted on this forum in 2001 under the user name Benjamin.
I was trying to track down the specific thread, but I seem to be stuck in a TWoP ID-approval cycle. Can someone provide a more specific link? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Without Pity link 

message: The producers in Star Trek made a list of casualties for Star Trek: Voyager which envolved the names of several characters of West Wing as an in-joke. Perhaps someone would like to add some sort of note on this? See here (look under Voyager). -- Redge 11:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek

message: If we change the starring list everytime there is a change int he opening sequence this season, we will change it every week. All of the person removed are still on the show but will only be credited when they appear. With a 40 second intro sequence this is reasonable, otherwise the open sequence would be like Lost. I am going to revert these changes because they are not accurate. - Scm83x 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Note how Stockard Channing's name only appeared when she was in the episode, and likewise with Alan Alda when he first signed on as Vinick.  Sahasrahla 19:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starring whom? 

message: I was reading the Charlie Young page and noticed that when he is referred to, it is as "Charlie".  This is similar to most everyone else's pages, except for Leo's, which uses a mix of "Leo" and "McGarry" and President Bartlet's, which uses a mix of "Bartlet", "the President" and "President Bartlet".  Should these be brought to the same standard? Cigarette 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mixing of first and last names is part of the style of person who wrote the article.  In the show, the viewer has a casual relationship with the character, so it is OK to use the first name.  At the same time, the president can be referred to as the president, President Bartlet, or Bartlet.  His office seems to imply a greater air of improtance.  The one thing that does need to be done in regards to name standardization is the decapitalization of "the president" across all articles.  Yes, we have respect for him but the capitalization is not necessary when preceded by an article.  Thanks -Scm83x 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First or last names? 

message: * Did Christopher Lloyd really portray the real Lawrence Lessig, or a different fictional Lessig? dml 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, he protrayed the real Lessig. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: here is lessig's comments: . --mtz206 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence Lessig 

message: Why don't we add onto that table where the characters were in Season 1 and where they are now? Quite a lot of changes have taken place since then and there could be some who simply glance at that table to get a sense of the positions, when Jed and Abbey are the only ones who have the same job. --Harlequin212121 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a decision reached during the PR and FAC to lessen the number of spoilers in the article.  Anyone interested in the progression of any character can just go to their individual article to see. Most of those characters have also held those jobs for the majority of the series. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Character and Position in 1st Season Table 

message: Someone added that the discrepency  between real world elections and WW elections is now down to only on year because the election is going to take place in the 7th season. This is incorrect, because the election hasn't occured 'earlier' in the show's universe; the show's timeline has speeded up one year. The discrepency is still 2 years.
Oh, come on! Who put "An article in the current issue of the British Magazine TV Zone"? Which issue is the 'current' issue? Also, the paragraph later refers to the magazine being in some way an official publication. It's a TV rag! It doesn't issue edicts or hold royal court. It's not even the most official of the TV rags - this title goes to the Radio Times. I will come back soon and maybe edit this if no objections/comments left. --Rossjamesparker 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Timeline 

message: There seems to be many edits back and forth between listing the Santos v. Vinick election as 2005 or 2006? What is the definitive answer? It seems that some feel it should be listed as 2005, since that's the "real time" year in which the fictional election occurs. But why do some insist on 2006? Is it a year ahead in the fictional timeline of the show? --mtz206 12:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:That's right.  Previous elections in the show's timeline took place in 1998 and 2002, so the upcoming one should logically be interpreted to happen in 2006.  However, the writers/producers of the show have sped up the timeline, for whatever reason.  So this 2006 election will take place on the show in the fall of 2005 real world time.  So, it's really either way, I don't know. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 14:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The series made no mentioning of altering the constitution to have elections happen earlier. On the contrary, many quotes were made which imply the election happening in 2006. Wouter Lievens 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, John Wells was quoted as saying: "We were a year and a half into the administration when we started the show," Wells said of the NBC drama entering its sixth season. "We have term limits in this country and so, on our electoral schedule, Bartlet's second term would end a year from this coming January." I would say he's implying that the election is being held at its correct time with no speed-up, thought that doesn't explain the 3 years since the last one or why for example the midterm elections were left. I would vote for keeping it 2005 because it's the only thing we really know for sure, it's the official line, and it puts the facts on the table as they are so everybody can make up their own mind - a while back I tried to explain it in the article at the end of the "show's evolution" paragraph. And I would think that people not so involved in the show will more likely think of it being 2005, and I could also imagine media quotes like "the fictional election taking place this year."--newsjunkie 20:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Santos v. Vinick: 2005 or 2006?

message: If you look at the "campaign blog" for Santos, the first entry is Wednesday, August 3. August 3rd was only a Wednesday in 2005, not in 2006. Since we know it's only a couple of weeks/days till Election Day, it looks like the Election is in 2005. In the same way, Vinick's blog is dated Thursday, August 4. 
--newsjunkie 19:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Clue to Election Year Being 2005 

message: For whatever resaon, the phrase "The show is also known to be really boring, and is one of the major cures of insomnia due to its mind numbing lack of excitment." appears at the end of the "Critical Reactions" article. After several attempts, I was unable to locate the text in any of the "source" sections and so was unable to remove it, So I am forced to leave it to better and brighter wikipedians than I to correct.
216.240.7.149 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way ahead of you. It's already gone. --Hnsampat 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism in "Critical Reactions"

message: No source for this, but I remember that Bartlett's VP was the republican oppenent.  There was a flashback to there debates and Bartlett asking him in one of the earlier seasons.  I think I need a citation for this, and I don't want to ruin this great article with a missing citation.  Thanks. User: False Prophet
:You're thinking of the scene in the third-season episode Bartlet for America where Bartlet asks John Hoynes to be his running mate. Hoynes isn't his Republican opponent, though. Hoynes was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination during the primaries, until Bartlet defeated him. So, Bartlet asks his one-time Democratic primary opponent to be his running mate (so that the two of them can run against the Republican nominee and his running mate). Bartlet and his VP are both Democrats.--Hnsampat 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: The show airs on many CBS affiliates, but it is distributed by Telepictures and airs on non-CBS affiliates.
Case in point: in New York it airs on independent station WLNY-TV, but also airs on WCBS-TV the CBS flagship. --Spotteddogsdotorg 06:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndication in the US 

message: Recently a user added a line stating that there was a picture of President Clinton behind Bartlet's seat in the Situation Room.  If someone could cite a particular episode that you can see the picture in, it'd be a great new addition to the article.  Thanks!! -Scm83x 07:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton's picture 

message: Here are 4 (and this is a tiny sampling) blogs discussing the obvious Katrina disaster parallel.  I don't think that this sentence falls under the original work or research rule.
http://jeffords.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-duck-and-cover-tonight-began.html
http://themediablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-left-wing.html
http://culturecurse.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-countdown.html
http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-last-nights-episode-about.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brockmanah (talk • contribs) 
This article went through a long featured article candidacy and peer review.  One of the most striking problems about the article was the original research that was being done and the scope of the article.  One episode does not define the scope of the entire show, and proper credible sources must be cited. This information is not appropriate for this article.  If you read the section, it does not even flow smoothly in the place it was put. — Scm83x talk  17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Scm83x.  He brings up two good points.  One is that a blog entry does not make this not original research -- the text is still fan speculation and opinion.  But this is not my most pressing concern.  My biggest problem is that additions such as this have too much of a knee-jerk reaction to recent episodes.  This episode is one of over 100 episodes aired.  Its impact on the entirity of this article, the full bredth of the season, and the series as a whole is (a) yet unknown and (b) probably small.  Leave it out. Rlove 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also tend to agree, it is only one episode and doesn't play a major role in the series as a whole.  Furthermore, if anyone isn't aware of the 3 revert rule, please take a quick read through it now.  I'd hate to see someone disciplined over something as small as this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Left Wing, Katrina Discussion

message: There is a discussion at the Allison Janney talk page about having a section noting the cancellation of the West Wing on her page. Perhaps it should be inserted in this article instead? --mtz206 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anywhere, it should definitely be here, not there.  And I think we certainly wish to treat the cancellation of the series ex post facto.  The only question is if we want to cover the subject now, before hand, and to what extent.  Of course Allison's entry is not CJ's, and if the cancellation has ramifications on her career, editors there are free to present it. Rlove 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add section on cancellation?

message: "among high income viewers" is retarded even if it's true and cited. 'popularity has waned but... it's still a cool, relevant, educational show' is what I would say if it were my wiki. o, wait... KzzemeVision 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The popularity of the show among high income viewers affects what advertising is sold during the show.  Therefore, this is the relevance of this fact. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I read the first 3 paragraphz 

message: Someone has removed the term 'pedeconferencing' as uncited. A Google search, however, shows over 3,000 hits for this term - many with reference to The West Wing. One page claims it was coined by Television Without Pity. Should this term be reinstated? Njjh201 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people have tried to add this term to the article, but it is simply not popular outside of "fandom".  If we can find several critical articles (i.e. published in a film criticism or political journal) about the topic, I suppose that the term may merit inclusion.  However, it just seems that, in the scope, of the series a neologism that only garners 3000 Google hits really doesn't make the cut in an FA. — Scm83x hook 'em 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedeconferencing 

message: What has been the reaction of the Republican press to the series? It is kind of hard to imagine making the WW in a Republican administration - what do people in the US make of this? Guttlekraw 12:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican press? 

message: The article has it a record 9 for 1 yr; my impression was, it was a record for a debut yr. Correction?  Trekphiler 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a record for any year of any series.  Nine awards is the most won by any show ever; The West Wing is just good enough that they did it in their first season.  ;-) -Scm83x 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmy 

message: *Some months after this special 9/11 episode aired, I was at a talk given at an university by various TV writers, including a lead writer for The West Wing (a woman, I forget her name). The woman was asked about how the 9/11 episode was created, but she seemed unhappy about saying anything and basically said something like "no comment, Sorkin was responsible for that, I wasn't" (but politer). I wonder if there is anything out there which talks about this apparent disagreement amongst the writing staff about that episode. Bwithh 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isaac and Ishmael 

message: I only got to see The West Wing recently by seeing the first few episodes of season 4 and months ago I heard that it was a spin-off of The American President. Did some checking on Wikipedia and all I find is that Aaron Sorkin had written the screenplay of The American President and some aspects of it was used on The West Wing even the casting of Martin Sheen. So in terms of storylines and characters am I right to assume that The West Wing is not in any way related to The American President. --The Shadow Treasurer 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a plot or fictional universe perspective, it has no relationship to The American President. --mtz206 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Yes, you are correct that most of the aspects of the show are dissimilar and there is really no spin-off connection.  I do believe that the West Wing set was the same one used in the movie.  If you are interested in other Sorkin works, you may want to rent/buy Sports Night, which was a series run on ABC for two years by Sorkin.  They share many of the same characters and plotlines.  The show is really a great favorite of mine and many other West Wing fans. Thanks for the inquiry. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a spin-off of The American President? 

message: In the vein of List of Six Feet Under writers and directors, I suggest that there should be a West Wing writers and directors article. It could be useful, seeing as writers and directors are not listed in the List of The West Wing episodes article, and I think it would be interesting to compare the number of episodes that writers/directors have worked on the show. I can't create an article, but perhaps someone else can. 24.245.44.227 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be cool, and can offer explanations of the styles and fan response of each writer (i.e. Sorkin's considered the best and tends to be the most proficient with dialogue, O'Donnell's considered dry and too full of fact and not as much with story/character, Cahn's are considered the best since Sorkin, etc. etc.)--Harlequin212121 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought of that angle! This could be a very good analysis article as well as statistics. (I'm such a nerd.) Someone who thinks the idea is good, please make this article! 24.245.44.227 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers and Directors article? 

message: Commentary by some self-appointed shrink, with similar paragraph headings, was posted on What About Bob? a couple of days ago, and who knows where else? This uncited POV junk should be zapped, not just commented out. Wahkeenah 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wahkeenah.  I'll take care of it. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed some other ID briefly added it back. A sock puppet named Argyle? Not much subtlety there, eh? Wahkeenah 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrayal of mental illness

message: I'm in the middle of watching the finale episode of The West Wing, in which the fictional United States President Josiah Bartlet is handing over power to his successor. As the White House staff are moving Bartlets' belongings out of the White House, a book with the cover with the title or author name "Michel Foucault" (the French radical intellectual) is prominently displayed being taken off the President's bookshelves. President Bartlet, in addition to being an American patriot of the Democrat variety, is a Nobel Prize winning economist and devout Catholic who originally wanted to be a priest. He seems highly unlikely to be a fan of Foucault, or even to own a book about him - and The West Wing is not an exercise in radical irony or anti-historical problematization. Cultural critics and TV scholars - what are to make of this insertion of a Foucault shout-out in the final episode then? Bwithh 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nope, you're thinking of Léon Foucault, the physicist. Michel Foucault is known for his political writing and activism amongst other things. Bwithh 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I was being creative. Just like the writers of the final episode. :) Wahkeenah 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be out of character for Bartlet to want to be versed in continental views on power. --mtz206 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's stretching it a little, as Foucault is radical even in French political theory. But regardless, could it be that the show's writers are sending a message? It was the one interesting moment in a pretty blah utterly predictable and conventional finaleBwithh 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It also could have been a gift. --mtz206 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foucault and The West Wing

message: Why is the running time 42 minutes? Wouldn't it be 1 hour? the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question.... 

message: While I admit that The West Wing is aired in Ireland, it is also aired in Sweden and dozens of other countries.  Where do you draw the line of notability for countries?  When the line was first composed, I included those three countries because they are all large major countries where the show is broadcast.  While Ireland is a country where the show is aired, why include it?  I'm not sure at all where to draw that line. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: is the west wing still playing on bravo tv at all? anyone know? I haven't seen it lately. I'm pretty mad about that. CrackityKzz 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess they stopped for summer? -MBlume 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bravo 

message: The audio file for this page was done in December 2005 and a lot has changed since then. As the show is now off the air, it is unlike that this page will change radically. Would it be possible for the audio file be updated to a more definitive version of the page? Philip Stevens 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New audio file 

message: >>
W.G. "Snuffy" Walden received an Emmy Award for Main Title Design in 2000 for "The West Wing Opening Theme".
<<
Snuffy is a composer.  He won the 2000 Emmy for "Outstanding Main Title Theme Music". The West Wing was also nominated for "Outstanding Main Title Design" that year, but did not win, and Snuffy was not the designer. source: http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.202 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for the note; I'll make the change right away.  Remember that the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can make corrections to any mistake that you see.  Get a user name and join us!  Thanks! — Scm83x hook 'em 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs correction 

message: "All contemporary domestic government officials in The West Wing universe have been fictional." Well duh, obviously. Do we really need this sentence? Richard75 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that sentence is there to contrast with the statement at the beginning of the next section that many foreign officials in the West Wing universe are real (e.g. Fidel Castro, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and Queen Elizabeth II). Also, it shows that many past domestic officials have been real (e.g. every President from Washington to Nixon). --Hnsampat 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant

message: Has there been any thought given to creating a WikiProject The West Wing? To my knowledge, coverage of West Wing-related articles is significant compared to many other television shows. --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already at least 4 or so of us who regularly patrol these pages. But if someone wanted to organise this into a WikiProject, I suppose I wouldn't mind : ) - But I would like to hear from a few of the others before we "dive in". : ) jc37 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject?