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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
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)