Talk:WE Communications

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WE Communications article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

WE Communications has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

On 28 January 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from WE (firm) to WE Communications. The result of the discussion was moved.

Request edit on 19 April 2013

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

I would like to request the following corrections to the article on <<Waggener Edstrom>>'s behalf:

Services section, first paragraph; reference to Maloney & Fox as independent subsidiary ; [1]
Services section, second paragraph; SXSW apps to promote Studio D

I’m Kate Benkoski, I work as a Communications Specialist at Waggener Edstrom Worldwide. I’d like to suggest two edits in the “Services” section. Since the merging of Waggener Edstrom and Maloney& Fox appears in the above "History" section, it is confusing to refer to Maloney & Fox as an independent subsidiary in the “Services section. May I suggest:

Waggener Edstrom has seven practice areas, including Healthcare, Public Affairs, Brand Strategy and Technology.[22][23] The firm's consumer work had sometimes been done in partnership with Maloney & Fox[24][25] once an independent subsidiary now fully merged with Waggener Edstrom.

The second suggested edit would be in the second paragraph. The SXSW apps were not created to promote on specific practice but rather as a more general promotion of the agency and our partners. As you can see from the coverage, no specific practice group is mentioned. May I suggest simply deleting the Studio D reference:

It also created mobile apps for the SXSW conference from 2011 - 2013.[33][34][35][36].

Kabenko13 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to point out the error rather than propose alternative text, because it's difficult for us to compare the two versions. Unless of course the changes required are so drastic there is no other practical way to propose an overhaul where one is needed.

I've made most of the changes. PRWeek says it's a subsidiary and this is worth pointing out. Whether the subsidiary is "fully merged" is POV, but so was calling it "independent", so I've fixed that, as well as the Studio D reference. CorporateM (Talk) 04:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a tiny row of Criticism in article?

Not even a tiny row of Criticism in article? Let's speak about of PR company of the Master of Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy, and aren't critique episodes?

I think stuff like this [2] or worst...

88.149.227.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WE (firm). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150104152422/http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58836 to http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58836

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA status and gutting

It seems the article was mostly gutted in a few edits by a single user that was supposedly getting rid of old information. Whatever that means. Seems their only edits have been to this article also. I'd suggest either the content they removed is put back or the GA status is re-reviewed. Personally, I'd like to see the deleted information put back. Since it's not clear why it was removed in the first place. Plus, old information is still completely relevant to the article and subject. I'd also suggest a banner be placed on the article stating that it was edited by un-disclosed payed editor or whatever the proper banner is. If no one else does it, I eventually will. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened across this article looking at GA-status articles about PR firms, and I noticed the same thing with the gutting of the article. I agree with your take – seems like either revision or reassessment is due. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WE (firm) → WE Communications – This is the proper full name of the company, as listed on their website. Natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. IagoQnsi (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move suggested. If anyone opposes the move please share below.- DownTownRich (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, WP:NATURAL. - Station1 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.