Talk:List of The West Wing episodes

Copyright issue

Umm..isn't a lot of this copyrighted? Wasn't this ripped directly from the pamphlet that comes with every DVD box set of each season? -Lugevas

Hadn't seen these myself (I'm not one of the main editors of this page, just checking in), have never rented/bought entire season boxed sets to compare. Hrm. Need to check to see who contributed those parts of this page, I think, ask them more directly, put in copyvio proceedings if no joy there, etc as usual... this is bad news I agree... Schissel : bowl listen 18:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Again, hello? I didn't write that 'this article is inappropriate' header, I have no doubt the article is appropriate, or would be if it weren't (assuming Lugevas is correct) a serious issue of Copyvio. So hello? Schissel : bowl listen 02:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Notes that the source of the episode summaries may be??? http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/epguide.html (declared unofficial site, which may or may not be reprinting the summaries with permission but I don't see a GPL notice anywhere.) Schissel : bowl listen 02:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of this is copyrighted by this site. Unless we can show that they copied it from us (in which case they are in breach of copyright because they assert their own copyright).

Having said that, this site also claims that the exact same wording is their copyright. Someone is certainly copying somebody. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is full of copyright violations and that means so are the individual episode articles.

• Early S1 summaries seem to be OK.
• Episodes 12-21 are © NBC Universal, Inc.
• All S2 is a mix of copyright violations from tvguide.com and NBC - take a quotation from any summary and search for that exact phrase and you'll end up with http://www.westwingepguide.com/S2/Episodes/29_TPT.html which contains both the tvguide.com and NBC summaries.
• S3 has a few paraphrased summaries, but mostly copyvios of same sources as above.
• S4 from TV Guide
• S5 is another tv guide/NBC rip off
• S6 is mostly as above.
• I think S7 is OK. Mark83 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes me more certain is a lot of them were added by the same user (User:J@ffa): [1] Mark83 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Special Ep. Isaac and Ishmael season position

User:24.16.175.49 yesterday moved I&I under season 3, which was then reverted by User:Scm83x given the reason "I&I was not part of season 3, instead airing as a spec. ep before the season". Having thought about it, while that comment is true, it's probably more corrected to be under the season 3 header than season 2. It was broadcasted along with the rest of S3 rather than S2. Also, if you buy the DVD for the whole season that they sell, it comes with S3 and not S2. The other option is to take it from being a header under any particular season, but special ep. 2 was broadcasted halfway through S3 (according to what it says now), so it could be difficult if one wanted a linear time order list of when it was broadcasted. -- KTC 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, someone needs to fix the part of the explanation for that article which reads The White House is "crashed"..., as the meaning of "crashed" here isn't clear at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always considered Isaac & Ishmael as episode 0 of season 3. The order is not important though, as the episode is not supposed to fit into The West Wing's continuity. Kewpid 04:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Separated

I am from the Hungarian wikipedia. We are currently writing the List of The West Wing episodes. But I have a problem: the List of The West Wing episodes is too long, so we have separated seasons. I think, it would be better, if you separated this list, too. What do you think? Nyikita 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Are you separating the seasons? --MZMcBride 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! for example on the hungarian wikipedia: hu:Az elnök emberei harmadik évadja. I would like, thet you are separeted this list. Nyikita 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I rather strongly disagree with this decision. It is appropriate maybe for something as insanely long as List of The Simpsons episodes, but TWW episodes is not a big enough list to warrant splitting IMO. Staxringold 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that because TWW only ran for seven seasons, it doesn't really warrant separate pages. Most "List of ______ episodes" are on only one page. But that shouldn't stop you from splitting the Hungarian article, if you want to. --MZMcBride 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Change to the tables

I've begun changing the tables. The synopsises have all been shortened, with the full text being put on the episode's specific article. Also, bars have been added between each episode to make it look more like the featured article page, List of South Park episodes. I'm also considering splitting the episode column to look something like this? It would contain the production code, season episode number and overall episode number. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes!, please split the episode column too.- Jor70 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure as to the purpose of the colored bars in between each episode. For one thing, it's only on the first three seasons. Like someone in an above section said, I think just a table like the Arrested Development episodes list would be fine. Then we wouldn't need to worry about the pictures or cutting down the summaries or anything. We could just leave the pictures and summaries to individual episode articles. 24.118.156.57 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode images

I deleted the specific episode images and replaced with the regular title-screen image that all the other 151 episodes have. I think more people should upload all the images they can (one of every episode) because the page looked a bit strange with only three episodes having individual images. Almost all of them are available here. 24.118.156.57 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not do this. Unfree images should only be used when they are being specifically discussed in the text. If a part of the plot is discussed in detail and requires illustration with a screenshot then fine. Also do not use the title card as a place holder. See WP:FUC for details. ed g2s • talk 09:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically using a placeholder is a "decorative use", while if oyu have indiivdual screen caps, because its applicaple to teh text, it would be fine in thsi article. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

If no one objects, I'd like to begin converting the episode tables into the standardized Episode list template format that they're using at the List of Television Episodes WikiProject. PSUMark2006 07:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Episodes by season?

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)

Screenshots of episodes

Hi, I was wondering wheather or not i should add episode screenshots, and if so, to where, e.g. this list or the episode article. Sorry, im rather new at this... Thanks. Adammw 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Why was my video deleted? Adammw 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per the fair use criteria, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Simply including a link to a copyrighted audio clip when the theme music isn't being discussed in this article doesn't satisfy this criterion, in my opinion (others may disagree). Also, screencaps are probably more appropriate for individual articles for now (as there is some discussion as to whether or not such episode-specific articles are appropriate). Additionally, that clip had three fair use licensing tags on it, where only one is appropriate. Finally, in addition to the blanket fair use tags, you need to provide specific fair use rationale for why the uploaded content satisfies the criteria for fair use claimed by the particular licensing tag you're using. Hope this helps! — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Canonical" numbering

I've reverted (twice) removal of the documentary special from the episode list. The editor doing so claims the "canonical numbering" (if there is such a thing other than in fanworld) is off, and the episode does not belong where it's listed. I disagree. This is not a fan document. It's an encyclopedic compendium of the episodes of the show, and in this case, that includes a documentary about the making of the show, which was show in regular rotation. To remove it, and designate it as "not canon" both demands consensus and strikes me as very POV/fancrufty. This is anything but a reasonable reason to remove an episode from the article. (ETA: The source cited doesn't address the issue at hand, and the link doesn't work.) Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this initially, but my reply at your talk page clearly justifies the change (although the tone is probably excessively sarcastic). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And the revert was inappropriate as well, given you didn't have consensus, something I find troubling, along with the sarcastic tone of both your message on my talk page and your edit summary. You're an admin. You know the name of the game where sources are concerned. Instead of sourcing with the stuff you listed, in a fit of pique, all over my talk page (and seemed to expect me to go dig up), you should have used those sources to begin with. Instead you used a link to a copyright site that doesn't link back, and expected everyone to take your word for it. Given you reverted after this discussion was opened, I would be justified in another revert. However, I'll give you time to clean up the references, but if they're not in shape soon, I'll revert again. From there, the burden is on you, where it always was. Drmargi (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: Replied at you talk page with this before had a change to read above your post) Won't repeat my rebutal of the "admin" rubbish and your selective interpretation of policies that suit. Not sure why your bothering to mention "reverted after discussion was opened" as you already know I was oblivious to this as explained and apologised on your talk; it would have been helpful had you mentioned this talk page discussion in your edit summary. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I don't need consensus to replace something false with something that is verifiable and true. I've fixed the cocatalog link (didn't know you couldn't permalink that cite) but don't try and threaten me. You know my edit was factually correct as indicated by sources on your talk page and reverting in spite of that knowledge screams WP:POINT. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)