Jump to content

Talk:Endeavor (company)/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rewrite article

This article reads just like the offical company bio: http://www.wma.com/0/agency/history/. Suggest rewrite. Jimcripps 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a verbatim copy/paste of http://www.wma.com/agency/overview.aspx. There are few organizations in the world that know intellectual property law better than the William Morris Agency, and their page contains an explicit copyright notice.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And it isn't the first time. The article was deleted a couple of years ago for copyright infringement. I deleted it and recreated a barebones stub. Hopefully it won't be filled again by lazy copy-and-pasters, and if it is, it will be deleted again. - KrakatoaKatie 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

mailroom section

Someone needs to break this up into seperate sections. It really does read like a big long essay written by some PR person.71.192.127.216 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


please don't delete

i plan to add reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandsocks (talk • contribs) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

-- please help to make it more "encyclopeadic", please give advice. I'm a student and I've studied and done research on this historic firm. How I can not possible be able to share that knowledge? (BTW this is my first Wiki article)

I'm a bit confused - this doesn't really read much like an advertisment? The article seems mostly fine to me, maybe it's a copyvio or something, I don't know. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.. Also, please refer to all other talent agencies pages, such as : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Creative_Management. if that's not up to standard, please explain...09:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has a conflict of interest and there are no references in the article. I suspect there are probably also copyvios but I haven't had time to investigate since I've been trying to remove this user's other copyvios on other articles and on Commons. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if they did have a COI but I don't think the article is so crap it needs to be deleted speedily, that's all.Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by conflict of interest? Do you mean that because I've done research on it? I'm a film student at USC, and my thesis is on this company.Breadandsocks (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you explain why you deleted the pictures on this page? 2 of them I took myself, 3 others I got from flickr with the copyrights that follow the upload guide.Breadandsocks (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason the page is as is is because i've followed the same format with all its competitors, namely, "the big fives" of Hollywood. ICM, UTA, CAA, Endeavor and WMA. How am I an employee?? Two of the pictures I took myself, personallyBreadandsocks (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand how this is promotional. I've put down all the facts. I plan to ref them but that's going to take a little bit. I have the books, including the Agency, The Mailroom, Hollywood History, etc.Breadandsocks (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I began editing this with goodwill as i've been using wiki for ref on a lot of things in the past couple of years. i realized that WMA is not explained here while its smaller competitors are. so i decided to do it since i'm doing research on it anyway. i don't get why this has to be so difficult? this is my first article i admit but i'm just trying to put in what i've foudn.Breadandsocks (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, can someone please explain why was the logo removed when Creative Artists Agency or other companies (Coca-Cola,IBM,Disneyhave that? Is there a particular reason or rule guiding that?Breadandsocks (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing speedy tag

I'm removing the speedy tag because as indicated in my edit summary this is a clearly notable company and the article contains sourced encyclopedic content. Thus, even if there is spam here it is neither pervasive nor unfixable. Please don't take that as an endorsement of the article in its current form or any COI or copyvio issues, or an occasion to stop improving the article. We clearly ought to have an article about this company because of its huge importance in the entertainment industry. The list format for clients and employees, though generally disfavored, might make some sense here where the information is useful and the list is easily verifiable and finite in size. I would urge any editor with COI issues to stick to the basic facts and avoid anything that could be controversial. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Here are a few things that come to mind:

  1. If we do keep the list format, please make sure that each link goes to the right article and not to a disambiguation page or an article on a different subject with the same name, e.g. Lost.
  2. If someone doesn't have an article, don't create a redlink, and don't create a meaningless stub article as a placeholder. It's fine to create a bunch of articles about people if they are truly notable - but be sure to at least write the article well enough and include reliable sources to establish notability.
  3. It would be best to include a source for each employee and client that proves that they are clients/employees of the agency, even if that means a lot of duplicate footnotes. The way to merge them all into one is to say something like "<ref name=name1>FULLREFERENCE</ref>" the first time and then "<ref name=name1/>" for each subsequent cite to the same source. That does a couple things. First, it shows that the fact of them being a client or employee is notable enough to receive coverage by a source rather than being a compilation of meaningless or trivial info. Second, it creates verifiability that it is in fact true. Citing a source for the whole section makes it difficult to chase down each fact, and could get messed up in the future if new editors add things willy-nilly.
  4. If a person is notable (or their relation to the agency is important enough to get coverage) but they have no article, adding a source is good practice. You'll see that well-written "list" articles often impose this requirement as a threshold for inclusion.
  5. Obviously, don't copy text or images verbatim from press releases, newspapers, company websites or literature, etc. It is okay to use a logo - see WP:LOGO and compare with similar articles.
  6. See WP:COI for some hints about editing in a conflict of interest situation.

Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • If there is anything in this article that violates NPOV or isn't referenced to a reliable source it will be removed immediately. If this user continues to abuse Wikipedia (or Commons) to promote their company I will log the action and report it to ANI. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Within the section of notable employees which you attempt to delete, 18 are referenced in the 2 books refs that you also attempt to delete. Please explain.Breadandsocks (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with linking to an offline book or a paid source like IMDB pro. A courtesy or secondary link would be ideal if the information can also be sourced elsewhere. Again, sourcing each claim separately would be an improvement. Another suggestion is that it's better to mention current and past clients, not just current clients. One of the main objections to use of lists in articles is that they take a lot of work to maintain and quickly become dated. If that happens they make a claim (that they are an accurate representative or exhaustive list of things) that is likely untrue. Also, for purposes of explaining a company, the overall history of clients they have served is a more significant / encyclopedic question than who they happen to serve at the moment. The main objection I think is that it's undigested information that looks like a corporate resume. However, I think on balance a list format is a lot more readable and informative than trying to work it into prose. The other option is to create a category. Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. Should I reinsert the past client list? (I have prepared one but I sourced it to WMA's own site, which explained the time and circumstances of past (and often deceased) clients.) It was deleted by someone but I can put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandsocks (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Clients and Films is Brochuresque

Clients

AgencyMatters, possibly sock of AgencySecurity or Breadandsocks, inserts a list of past and present clients.

In any case, I believe this should be removed because:
a) listing a combination of past and present clients is not helpful for understanding what the agency is today
b) many agencies share clients.

I think WME,CAA,UTA, etc should all be reviewed. Is there an editor that could take on the major agencies and turn out something other than a brochure?

Foobahrain (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Films

Listing films that WME clients are involved in should absolutely not be in this article. These same lists could be placed verbatim on the other big agencies as their clients also "made" those movies. Not one film in the list was exclusive to WME clients. Listing these films is worse than brochure-text -- it falsely claims these films as particular to WME, when they are not. Perhaps one of the WME employees that regularly updates this article could explain why these movies are particularly relevant to WME vs. other agencies.

"AgencySecurity" will not do that because he/she is a WME employee.

Foobahrain (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is in dire need of a logo, and if anyone has a picture of the new offices on the west coast, or even New York, that would be great as well. I can add a picture of the Miami Beach offices, but it's a secondary location, I believe it's only appropriate to add it once we have the "main offices" on the page. Any help would be appreciated. Let's start with the logo. E. Douglas Statzer (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

The name of the company is William Morris Endeavor. While they have recently stylized themselves as "WME", the company nonetheless remains "William Morris Endeavor" (see the bottom of their homepage) and the article should remain named as such. jheiv talk contribs 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endeavor_(company)/Archives/2012&oldid=1082469515"