Talk:Writers Guild of America

message: Number one reason why the WGA should be abolished: the grammar that is used is atrocious.  Does nobody proofread anymore?  For example: "laying down for a nap" or "her and me gone to the store" are things that the WGA writers use.  Therefore, they should all be fired and kicked out of the guild when they suck this badly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.176.136 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More fundamentally, where’s the apostrophe in their title? MapReader (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: Is membership in the Guild Mandatory to work in screenwriting ?  I have been researching a television writer who began a career writing radio in the 1940's and continues in television to this day, but according to both the East & West branches that person has never been a member of the WGA ?  I find this a little confusing.  Anyone have any knowledge ? Dowew 22:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mandatory ?

message: Though affiliated the WGAE and WGAw are two separate organizations and should have separate pages.  Syndicalista 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers Guilds East and west 

message: There have been several WP:OTRS complaints about this article and I have stubbed it based on a lack of references and a good deal of speculative content.  Please rebuild it with due attention to references for each assertion and particular care in coverage of any controversial materal. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubbed

message: I created very basic pages for Writers Guild of America, East and Writers Guild of America, west.  I hope that others will assist in filling in  additional information about the two guilds, using verifiable sources.  This original page "WGA" had a lot of NPOV problems, which hopefully we can avoid moving forward.  I think this page should serve more as a disambiguation-type page.  Syndicalista 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new articles

message: I'm afraid we're getting into an undo war on this page and we should discuss some of the ongoing quality problems with this article to reach consensus.  The WGAw and WGAE articles are pretty decent but this one stumbles usually because contributors try to make generalizations that only apply to 1 of 2 guilds.  Here is my list of potential problems:DirectRevelation 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * IAWG - OK, I'm going to take this REAL slow so no one freaks out and starts repeatedly hitting Undo without checking the discussion first.  The WGA as such is not a member of the IAWG but, people stumbling on this page may also be interested in that topic. So I'm moving IAWG from the Category section and putting it in See Also section.  No information has been removed, just moved to the right section.  If you have a different veiwpoint, let's discuss. DirectRevelation 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * 1933 - I removed the the "1933 establishments" category.  I did add a 1921 cat for WGAw, a 1951 cat for WGAE, and a 1949 cat for the Awards.  I'm not sure how useful the year cats are, but they're out there now.  See the discussion in WGAw for why 1933 is important, but not a founding date.DirectRevelation 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * AFL-CiO - Removed AFL-CIO Category as factually innacurate.  WGAE is but WGAw competes against federation.  This info mentioned in each separate article.  See earlier posting above from 11/6.  If you have other perspectives, let's discuss here.DirectRevelation 12:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Corrected by another contributor. DirectRevelation 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Tag removed by yellowdesk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectRevelation (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Removed by another contributor.DirectRevelation 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Since deleted by Fang Aili  (Oops, now it's back again.) (Oh, it was gone and now it's back yet again!)DirectRevelation 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Quality Problems with this Page (All Have Been Addressed)

message: I made some not-so-bold changes to the Articles sections:
* Changed 2007 Strike to Work Stoppages:  This makes it more flexible for future strikes.  Oh, a lot of people are interested in this issue because they want to know how their shows are impacted but, after this strike is over, we should probably remove the sub-link.
* Changed See Also to Parallel Activities:  Added some details so people would better know what these headings mean.
* Removed the Blank References Section:  Others have done this before me but it keeps coming back.  If you want it there, please discuss here so we can come to a consensus.DirectRevelation 08:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections of Article

message: The Wikipedia policies encourage keeping external links out of the text and with a header indicating that they are, well, external links.  Both of these web sites are good but they're also listed on articles included in the disambig listing.  
Is it common to have external links with a disambig page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectRevelation (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any other disam pages with external links and all seem to include only itself as a cat.  Standardized accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectRevelation (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Section, stay or go?

message: I've removed the dab tag, as this isn't a dab page - it's a short article explaining the use of the heading title, and linking to all the various useful relevant articles, but a dab page is supposed to be just a list of articles with the same or similar title, and shouldn't really have any links pointing to it except a few exceptions.  I think this is a useful article and would defend any attempt to delete it, but it just isn't a dab.  WP:IAR if necessary! PamD (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a dab page

message: The geographic range of the East vs. West organization seems to leave out the whole of the US west of the Mississippi but outside of the Southern California area. While I am sure that much of the writing is done in SoCal, are writers outside of this small area out of luck, or is this merely a misstatement?  Wschart (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  West of the Mississippi, not in SoCal?